9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as occurred in spite of taking all possible preventing measures by the applicant. - this is not a case where the applicant has applied for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Applicant has already deposited the demand amount of ₹ 49,147/-. In view of this position there is no case for imposition of penalty since there is no clandestine removal of goods by the applicant. As such, Government sets aside the penalty imposed on the applicant - Decided in favour of assessee. - F. No. 195/258/2011-RA - 1747/2012-CX - Dated:- 10-12-2012 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER This revision application is filed by M/s. Precitech Turning Pvt. Ltd., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n goods clandestinely removed with interest and for imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority issued impugned order and confirmed the duty of ₹ 49,147/- with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of confirmed duty demand on the applicant. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The goods in respect of which the duty demand had been confirmed and upheld by the appellate authority, had been stolen. It is not the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put to notice which was not done. 4.4 The Commissioner has also failed to appreciate that equivalent penalty is mandatorily provided only in cases covered by Section 11AC of the Act, such allegation was not made in the Show Cause Notice which only alleged that the applicant was liable to pay the duty for contravention of Rule 4 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which provides that every person who manufactures any excisable goods shall pay the duty in the manner provided. There was no allegation to attract invoking of Section 11AC and it was also not invoked. 4.5 The applicants has relied upon some case laws in favour of their contentions. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 10-10-2012 was attended by Shri N.K. Sharma, Advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty from any place, where they are produced or manufactured, or from a warehouse, unless otherwise provided. From reading of above provision, the Government is of opinion that the said provision is applicable in case where the goods are removed from factory without payment of duty in unauthorized manner by the manufacturer or producer of the goods. In this case, fact of looting/robbery, which also led to murder of security guard of applicant s factory premise, has not been disputed. As such, the applicant was a victim of theft incident. Under such circumstances, provisions of Rule (4) of the said rules cannot be applied as the applicant, a manufacturer, has not removed the goods unauthorisedly. Further, there is no specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
