Theft of excisable goods is not an unavoidable accident, so remission of duty is unavailable under the excise rules.

The excise remission rules do not treat theft or dacoity as a natural cause or unavoidable accident. Relying on the Larger Bench view, the Tribunal stated that forcible removal of excisable goods, whether violent or non-violent, falls outside Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Goods lost in theft are therefore not eligible for remission of duty, so a remission claim on that basis is rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether theft of excisable goods can be treated as an unavoidable accident or natural cause so as to justify remission of duty under the excise rules.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the Larger Bench ruling that theft or dacoity involving forcible removal of goods, whether violent or non-violent, does not amount to a natural cause or unavoidable accident within the meaning of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Goods lost in theft or dacoity are therefore not eligible for remission of duty.

Conclusion: The claim for remission of duty on goods lost in theft was rejected, and the issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Theft or dacoity is not an unavoidable accident or natural cause for the purpose of remission of duty under the excise rules.

---