Remission for missing bonded goods is limited to statutory causes; interest follows duty determination even without express demand.

Remission of duty for goods missing from a bonded warehouse is confined to loss caused by natural causes or unavoidable accident; alleged theft or dacoity does not qualify, and where theft is not proved the disappearance may support an inference of clandestine removal, so the duty demand stands. Interest on duty determined under the excise interest framework follows as a statutory consequence after duty is quantified, even if the show-cause notice did not expressly ask for it. A nominal penalty was also sustained, with no sufficient ground shown for interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether remission of duty was admissible for goods claimed to have been lost or stolen from a bonded warehouse; (ii) Whether interest was payable on the duty determined even though the show-cause notice did not expressly demand such interest; (iii) Whether the penalty imposed called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether remission of duty was admissible for goods claimed to have been lost or stolen from a bonded warehouse.

Analysis: Remission under the relevant excise remission provisions is available only where loss is attributable to a natural cause or unavoidable accident. Theft or dacoity does not satisfy that standard. On the facts, theft itself was not proved and the disappearance of the goods remained admitted. In the absence of proof of theft, the only sustainable inference was clandestine removal without payment of duty.

Conclusion: Remission of duty was not admissible and the duty demand was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable on the duty determined even though the show-cause notice did not expressly demand such interest.

Analysis: Liability to pay interest under the excise interest provision is a statutory consequence of determination of duty under section 11A(2) and does not depend on an express demand in the notice. Once duty was determined, interest became payable after expiry of the statutory period, and the delayed payment attracted interest for the intervening period.

Conclusion: Interest was held payable against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty imposed called for interference.

Analysis: The penalty was nominal and the appellate forum found no sufficient ground to interfere with the concurrent view of the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The penalty was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in entirety and the revenue's position on remission, interest, and penalty was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Theft, even if alleged in relation to excisable goods, does not by itself establish entitlement to remission unless it falls within the statutory grounds for remission, and interest on duty determined under section 11A(2) follows as a statutory consequence independent of an express demand.

---