Remission of duty for warehouse theft fails where theft is not an unavoidable accident under Central Excise Rules.

Goods stolen from a warehouse were not eligible for remission of duty under Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 because theft is a premeditated act and not an unavoidable accident. Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as operating on a different footing and did not govern the scope of Rule 147. The 48-hour notice requirement in the proviso did not save the claim, since the substantive condition for remission was not met. The duty demand was therefore sustained under Rule 9(2), and Rule 160 was indicated as the more appropriate setting for such loss.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods stolen from a warehouse were eligible for remission of duty under Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether failure to give notice within 48 hours under the proviso to that rule defeated the claim for remission.

Analysis: Rule 147 permits remission only where warehoused goods are lost or destroyed by unavoidable accident, and the grant of remission is discretionary. Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 operates on a different footing and does not control the scope of Rule 147. Theft is a premeditated act and not an unavoidable accident, so it does not fall within Rule 147. The notice requirement in the proviso does not assist the appellants because the substantive condition for remission itself was not satisfied. The demand was therefore rightly sustained under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with Rule 160 also indicated as the more appropriate setting for such a loss.

Conclusion: The claim for remission under Rule 147 failed, and the demand of duty was upheld against the appellants.

---