9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40/73-CX-1 & F.No. 21/29/65-CX-IV, which stipulates that the first information regarding such loss or destruction etc. to be sent within 24 hours of the occurrence. That they have failed to inform the department at all is not disputed. Moreover, what took them 4 years to file the remission of duty application with the department also remains unexplained. Hence, even without going into the issue whether 'thefts' would fall with the ambit of cases to which remission duty can be claimed, for which they have cited some case laws, I find that the remission application is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. Appeal disposed off - decided in favor of Department. - Central Excise Appeal No. 281 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2016 - Hon& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50/- per quintal. During April, 2001 appellant's molasses clerk, Chief Chemist and U.P. Excise Inspector colluded with each other and issued 10020.40 qtls molasses by issuing F4 gate pass and Central Excise invoices without making entries in the excise records. According to the assessee on account of this theft a loss was occurred to the business of the assessee and therefore an F.I.R. was lodged after six months on 14.10.2001. Subsequently, an application for remission was filed by the assessee after a period of four years in the year 2005 on 24.6.2005. The application for the remission was filed under Rule 49 (1) (A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which reads hereunder: The manufacturer shall, on demand pay the duty lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment also remains unexplained. Hence, even without going into the issue whether 'thefts' would fall with the ambit of cases to which remission duty can be claimed, for which they have cited some case laws, I find that the remission application is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. Against order of the Commissioner the assessee filed an appeal, which had also been dismissed vide order dated 25.3.2009. We have heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the department. Learned counsel at the Bar has submitted that the provision of the Rule 49 (1) (A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 clearly provides for remission in the case where the loss is due to natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
