TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (10) TMI 159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal Insurance Co. Ltd.) by letter dated 16-10-98 and the latter appointed Surveyors to assess the loss. The theft was also intimated to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, as well as to the Superintendent of Central Excise telegraphically on 17-10-98. They also provided details of the stolen goods to the Superintendent as required by him. Later on, the value of the stolen goods was also furnished to the Superintendent as required by him. Relevant entries were also made by the appellants in their statutory records (RG-1, Form-IV, RG-23 A, Part-I, etc.) so as to account for theft of the materials. Entries relating to the stolen materials were also shown in RT-12 Returns for the month of October, 1993 filed with the Supe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht that he would commit the offence. It is appellants' contention that as the theft was fully established and the loss caused by it was verified and certified by the competent authorities they were entitled to remission of the duty on the stolen goods. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has reiterated these grounds and prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Ld. JDR representing the respondent refers to the 'Basic Manual of Departmental Instructions (Third Edition) corrected up to 31-8-89' and submits that the Commissioner might have arrived at the figure of 775 Kgs. as the quantity of stolen goods on the basis of verification report of the Superintendent of Central Excise. However, ld. JDR has no answer to query from the Bench as to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a little over 500 Kgs only. This clearly reveals non-application of mind on the part of the Commissioner, who has, apparently, not cared to examine the claim before him properly. The Commissioner has recorded a finding that the theft in question was not "an unavoidable accident" coming within the meaning of this expression under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. I am unable to accept this finding. The factum of theft is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the theft was committed by the securityman posted in the appellants' premises. It was, admittedly, found at the day to break of 16th October, 98 that the securityman was missing along with the goods in question. The appellants took prompt action, reporting the matter ....