https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83353 The article explains that theft of excisable goods may fall within "loss" under Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 where the assessee shows the deprivation was unavoidable and not attributable to avoidable conduct. It further notes that delay in lodging the FIR did not defeat the claim because the delay was satisfactorily explained by local conditions and difficulty in obtaining police assistance. It also records that timely intimation to the Central Excise department was established through evidence of next-day notice and departmental correspondence, so the refund claim was admissible and the refusal of refund was set aside. en-us Thu, 30 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:17:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83353 The article explains that theft of excisable goods may fall within "loss" under Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 where the assessee shows the deprivation was unavoidable and not attributable to avoidable conduct. It further notes that delay in lodging the FIR did not defeat the claim because the delay was satisfactorily explained by local conditions and difficulty in obtaining police assistance. It also records that timely intimation to the Central Excise department was established through evidence of next-day notice and departmental correspondence, so the refund claim was admissible and the refusal of refund was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83353