9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the decision of the lower authorities inasmuch as the amount of penalty imposed on the appellant is a meagre Rs. 1,500/-. The appeals stand dismissed. - E/3315-3316/2006 - A/765-766/2009-WZB/C-IV/SMB - Dated:- 3-12-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) Shri Swapnil Bafna, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.P. Pereira, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of inserts (Chapter 82 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule). On 19-8-1992, they reported that 2477 units of inserts having assessable value of Rs. 68,079.97 and involving duty of Rs. 15,658.39 had been found missing from their bonded warehouse despite tight security control. In a subsequent report dated 7-9-1992, they stated tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. One of the present appeals is directed against the rejection of the remission application, while the other appeal is directed against the demand of duty with interest thereon as also against the penalty. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellant is not entitled to remission of duty on the goods in question, in the facts of this case. Their claim is directly hit by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Gupta Metal Sheets v. CCE, Gurgaon - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 796 (Tri.-LB) cited by the learned Advocate himself. The Larger Bench held that theft or dacoity was neither a natural cause nor an unavoidable accident and, therefore, goods lost in theft or dacoity were not eligible for remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yable in the absence of a specific demand in the show-cause notice. After considering these arguments, I am of the view that the liability of an assessee to pay interest on duty is a statutory liability which requires to be honoured by the assessee without insisting on specific demand. In the present case, there was a determination of duty under sub-section (2) of Section 11A by the adjudicating authority on 30-5-2003. In terms of the provisions of Section 11AA of the Act, the appellant was liable to pay interest on duly for the period after three months from the date of determination of duty. This, however, did not happen in this case. The appellant paid duty as late as on 16-11-2006. They ought to have paid this duty on or before 30-8-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
