9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the investigations into the allegation of burglary and their conclusion may be available. In the show cause notice as well as order in original the main allegation which has been considered and discussed is that the appellant has clandestinely cleared the goods and hence will be liable to pay the Central Excise duty thereon. The proper authority to consider the remission of duty in respect of goods lost in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules will be the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner (A) has concluded that from the evidence on record no case of clandestine clearance has been made out against the appellant. It is not known whether the appellant has already approached the Jurisdictional Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aled, the assessee received an export order from UAE for the complete stock of cigarettes left in the factory.. They applied for permission from the Department to clear the goods for export. There was a burglary at the factory premises which was noticed on 29.10.2010 in which 163 CFC of cigarettes were found missing out of the stock of 172 CFCs. Shri Anup Surjan, Director of the assessee was persuaded to deposit the duty involved in the cigarettes which were lost in the burglary to the tune of ₹ 19,52,225/-. The Department investigated into the circumstances leading to the loss of the cigarettes allegedly in burglary and issued show cause notice dated 02.05.2011 demanding duty involved in the cigarettes lost to the extent of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry but have been cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. Commissioner (A) in the impugned order held that there is no evidence to allege clandestine removal on the part of the assessee. He held as follows: In the light of foregoing, I am of considered view that the investigation has failed to substantiate the allegation with any corroborative, incontrovertible evidence. Such allegation is based merely on probability i.e. presumption. There is nothing on record to negate the claim of theft advanced by the applicant. In absenc of any evidence as discussed in previous paras, the allegations of clandestine removal is based on assumption, presumption, surmise or suspicion against the appellants but suspicion is not substitute of proo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t police by now would have concluded the investigations into the allegation of burglary and their conclusion may be available. 8. In the show cause notice as well as order in original the main allegation which has been considered and discussed is that the appellant has clandestinely cleared the goods and hence will be liable to pay the Central Excise duty thereon. The proper authority to consider the remission of duty in respect of goods lost in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules will be the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner (A) has concluded that from the evidence on record no case of clandestine clearance has been made out against the appellant. Further, it is on record that some portion of the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
