TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (6) TMI 158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er X procedure, demand was raised against them holding that the appellants had failed to establish that remission of duty was warranted in respect of the unaccounted consignment, since they had not proved beyond doubt that the goods had been destroyed by unavoidable accident. Before the adjudicating officer, the appellants had taken the plea that the wagons containing the excisable goods had been lost in transit. The appellants have submitted that when the goods were lost being under the control of the Railway authorities, no duty could be recovered from them. It has been submitted that the Assistant Collector had erred in equating the words 'lost' and 'destroyed' used in Rule 196. He had failed to appreciate that because of the use of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase i.e. where the tank wagons are misplaced and the appellants have been deprived of the goods for no fault of theirs. So far as the consignee namely the appellants are concerned, goods are deemed to be lost and the case of loss is beyond their control, the expression "lost or destroyed ........ by unavoidable accident during transport" occurring in Rule 196, according to the learned advocate, will cover the cases of loss despite reasonable care by the consignee. Misplacement of wagon causes loss to the consignee on account of all reasonable care taken by the consignee. Even if it is held that the reasonable care is required to be taken by the transporter of the goods to avoid loss of goods during transport, it is to be assumed that the Ra....