9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 180 - AT - Central ExciseTheft/burglary - remission of duty rejected interest on demand of duty proposed - held that interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is attracted only in cases involving fraud, suppression of facts, etc. In the instant case, there is no material of fraud, suppression of facts, etc. and therefore, recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable - appeal is allowed
Issues: Remission of duty on stolen goods under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002; Applicability of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in cases involving fraud or suppression of facts.
In this case, the appellant's request for remission of duty on stolen goods under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was rejected by the competent authority. A show cause notice proposing demand of duty on the stolen goods was issued, which led the appellant to deposit the duty amount before the adjudication order. The adjudicating authority appropriated the deposited amount and directed payment of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, emphasizing that the goods were removed without payment of duty. However, the Tribunal noted a contrary decision regarding the remission of duty on stolen goods. It was observed that there was no fraud or suppression of facts in this case, as evidenced by the records and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Division Bench of the Tribunal referred to a previous case and held that interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable only in cases involving fraud or suppression of facts. Since there was no evidence of fraud or suppression in the current case, the recovery of interest under Section 11AB was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order regarding the recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court on 1-1-2008.
|
