1994 (6) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants have failed to substantiate as to why there was a delay in filing FIR and whether or not the deptt. was intimated about the theft within specified time limit of 48 hours. It is for them to substantiate as to what security steps had been taken by them to prevent such an incidence and how the theft became unavoidable for them despite security measures. The Asstt. Collector has rightly rejected the refund claim. I find no reason to interfere with the orders appealed against. The appeal is rejected and disposed of accordingly." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a refund claim amounting to Rs. 4,328/- on 16-11-1988 on account of Central Excise duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y natural cause or by avoidable accident, the appellant referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court cited supra in which it was held :- According to Webster s Third New International Dictionary, the word `loss means `the act or fact of losing, failure to keep possession, deprivation, theft of property . In the same dictionary, the word `lost is defined as meaning `not made use of, ruined or destroyed physically or morally, parted with, no longer possessed, taken away or beyond reach or attainment . According to Law Lexicon, Vol. II page 44, the word `loss has no precise hard and fast meaning. It is a generic and a comprehensive term covering different situations. Loss results when a thing is destroyed. But it also is caused when .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant that the intimation was sent on 4-7-1987, i.e., within less that 24 hours; that this fact of sending the intimation on 4-7-1987 has been acknowledged by the Superintendent of Central Excise in his letter dated 5-2-1988. 9. Considering the above explanation furnished by the appellant, I find that theft was unavoidable. Had theft been avoidable, the appellant would have taken all precautions because loss to the appellant was much more than the loss to the Revenue. I am also satisfied that sufficient reasons existed there during the material time when terrorism was at its height in the area which prevented the appellant from ensuring that FIR was lodged in time and thus the delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X