9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y stated the fact of the case are that the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 96,000/- being Central Excise duty on 12 CFC on account of theft taken place in their Bonded Shipping Room in the night of 27th/28th September, 1996. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their appeal. 3.1 Ms. Punita Singh, Advocate was heard on 22-2-2000. The learned advocate made the following averments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act cannot be invoked and placed reliance on case laws reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 509 (T) in the case of Vijay Tank and Vessels Pvt. Ltd. and 1994 (73) E.L.T. 272 (Madras) in the case of Pond's (India) Ltd. To a specific suggestion that the situations in these relied upon cases do not appear to be same as in the instant Revision Applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oti Bhai v. Inspector of Central Excise reported in 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 282) had interpreted the word "accident" in Rule 147 to include "theft". Admittedly the goods manufactured by the applicant are under "physical Control" implying thereby the storage space for the non-duty paid goods was approved after taking into account all possible avenues wherein no leakage of Revenue was possible. In that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
