9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able on facts and law and the Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error of law apparent on the fact of record by relying on this decision. The impugned order is required to be set aside on this ground also. 4.2 That the facts involved in the present case were akin and similar to facts involved in following decisions which were cited at the time of hearing and which ought to have accepted by Commissioner (Appeals). (i) Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Maini Granites Ltd. : 2005 (187) E.L.T. 55 (Tri. - Bang.) (ii) Next Fashion Creators Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore : 2006 (206) E.L.T. 1015 (Tri. - Bang.) (iii) Interface Connectronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 95 (iv) G.K. Enterprises (P) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation by utilising imported/indigenously procured raw material in the manufacture of export goods and thereby fulfilling export obligation. It is submitted that by virtue of the aforesaid incident the said contract (bond) gets frustrated or incapable of performance and the parties are discharged from performing their obligations, as held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of J.D. Shah v Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bangalore [1983 (12) E.L.T. 233] "Penal provisions not enforceable" if terms of bond are incapable of performance. If the terms of contract have been impossible to perform by the act of God or by an event which was beyond petitioner's control then the penal provisions of contract cannot be enforced agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid principle the time limit for filing the present Revision Application would expire on 28-8-2008. The applicants, therefore, submit that the present application which is being filed is, therefore, in time. (iii) That even under proviso to Section 35EE(2) of the said Act the Central Government has power to condone the delay for the further period of 3 months and since the order was received by the applicants on 24-3-2008 the present revision application is being filed with further period of 3 months (in all 6 months) well before 24-9-2008 is, therefore, in time. 5. The case was listed for personal hearing on 18-8-2010 and 18-10-2010 but nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. 6. Government has considered the written submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From plain reading of said Rule, it is clear that theft cases are not covered under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This Rule relates to loss of goods due to natural causes only. Theft of goods cannot be treated as loss due to natural causes, can be due to negligence on the part of the applicant. Hence, remission of duty involved was rightly denied by the lower authorities. The said 100% EOU had a manufacturing in Bond Licence issued under Section 58 and 65 of Customs Act, 1962. As per the conditions of licence/Notification No. 22/03-CE dated 31-3-2003, they had executed B-17 Bond, Comprehensive Insurance Policy covering the duties of Customs and Central Excise and binding themselves to abide by conditions set out in Annexure to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
