9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1117 - AT - Central ExciseRemission of duty - theft of goods - Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - denial on the ground that theft of excisable goods cannot be equated with goods lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident, and thus, remission of duty on the stolen goods is outside the scope and purview of Rule 21 - Held that - On perusal of Rule 21 ibid, it reveals that the Commissioner is empowered to grant remission of duty, in the eventuality, when the same have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or on account of unavoidable accident - Whether theft can be considered as unavoidable accident within the meaning of the said rule, so as to remit Excise duty on the goods so lost, has been answered negatively by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gupta Metal Sheets Vs. CCE, Gurgaon 2008 (10) TMI 60 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that theft cannot be considered as natural cause - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Remission of duty on stolen goods under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Analysis: 1. The appellant's remission application for stolen goods was rejected by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur, on the grounds that theft does not fall under the purview of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which allows remission for goods lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accidents. 2. The appellant argued that since the theft occurred before the goods were removed from the port of export, it should be considered an unavoidable circumstance, making them eligible for remission. The appellant cited the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Sree Narasimha Textiles Ltd. to support this argument. 3. The Revenue, represented by the learned DR, contended that remission is only applicable for losses due to natural causes or unavoidable accidents, not theft. They referred to the case of Gupta Metal Sheets Vs. CCE, Gurgaon, and the judgment of the Honorable Madras High Court in the case of Golden Hills Estates Vs. CCE, Madras to support their stance. 4. The Tribunal examined the appeal records and noted that 62 Bales of Wool Tops were stolen, and the duty was discharged by the appellant. Referring to the decision in the case of Gupta Metal Sheets Vs. CCE, Gurgaon, the Tribunal concluded that theft cannot be considered an unavoidable accident under Rule 21. The Tribunal emphasized that theft involves forcible removal of goods, which is not a natural cause or an accident, as defined in legal terms. 5. Given the precedent set by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, which clarified that theft does not qualify as a natural cause or unavoidable accident, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the decision cited by the appellant from the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Sree Narasimha Textiles Ltd. cannot be relied upon. The impugned order rejecting the remission application was upheld. 6. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 21 and the legal definitions of theft and unavoidable accidents. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that theft does not fall under the scope of remission as specified in the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
|
