https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82310 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. en-us Tue, 05 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:50:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82310 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82310