TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02. Moreover, even if this is treated as a case of dacoity, the remission of duty cannot be allowed in view of Larger Bench judgment in the case of Gupta Metal Sheets vs. CCE, Gurgaon (2008 (10) TMI 60 - CESTAT NEW DELHI). Since, the remission of duty on the goods claimed to have been lost is not admissible and for this reason only, the Commissioner had rejected the appellants claim for remission of duty, the duty demand has been correctly confirmed against the appellant and in the circumstances of the case, penalty has also been correctly imposed - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. 2504 of 2008 (SM) - Final Order No. 53191/2014 - Dated:- 5-8-2014 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Respondent : Shri Pramod Kumar, Authorized Repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty/Cenvat credit demand of ₹ 31,86,631/- against the appellant alongwith interest on it under Section 11AB and imposed penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- on them under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Additional Commissioner while confirming the duty demand took note of the findings of the Commissioner in his order dated 31/01/06 rejecting the appellants application for remission of duty, that the police authorities have informed that the case was lodged on false ground and, as such, the police report establishes that there was no dacoity at all and that this is not a case of genuine loss of goods due to unavoidable accident but is a case where the remission of duty is being claimed on the ground of dacoity when no dacoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... false ground of dacoity as the police report establishes that no dacoity had taken place at all. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned Jt. CDR and have gone through the records. 5. There is no dispute that the goods in respect of which the remission of duty is being claimed are reported to have been lost on account of dacoity, which is claimed to have taken place in the night on 24-25th July, 2004. Though the appellant had lodged an FIR with the police authorities, the police authorities in their report have reported that the FIR was lodged on false grounds and that no dacoity had taken place. Keeping this fact in view, the Commissioner had rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
