https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84898 Remission of duty on alleged theft of excisable goods was denied because the loss was not satisfactorily proved and the mandatory procedural condition was not met. The FIR did not establish the number of watches stolen, the place of storage, or the basis for the quantity claimed, while Rule 147 required intimation to the proper excise authority within 48 hours of discovery of the loss. The appellant notified the department only later through the RT-12 return and did not promptly explain the delay. On these facts, the remission claim failed and recovery of duty was upheld. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:22:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84898 Remission of duty on alleged theft of excisable goods was denied because the loss was not satisfactorily proved and the mandatory procedural condition was not met. The FIR did not establish the number of watches stolen, the place of storage, or the basis for the quantity claimed, while Rule 147 required intimation to the proper excise authority within 48 hours of discovery of the loss. The appellant notified the department only later through the RT-12 return and did not promptly explain the delay. On these facts, the remission claim failed and recovery of duty was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84898