TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd utilized by the appellant in the manufacture of their final product. The said final product has not been exported and was stolen. The Tribunal has denied remission of duty in respect of said stolen goods. As such, the assessee was required to pay duty on their final manufactured goods which by the process of stealing has gone into the DTA stream. As such, the duty has to be confirmed on the value of said final product. Revenue has confirmed the duty by debiting the FOB value on the said goods cleared under DTA. There is no value available inasmuch as the goods were not being cleared by the appellant in DTA routine /normal course. The assessee would also have no alternate value of said goods. As such, we agree with the Revenue that dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest at the rate of 25%. 3. The said order of the Commissioner was appealed against by the assessee before Tribunal, who vide its final order No. C/642/08-Cus dated 25.11.08 rejected the assessees stand for remission of duty in terms of Section 23 of the Customs Act on the ground that issue stand decided by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Gupta Metal Sheets. However, the Tribunal further observed that inasmuch as the other issues have not been dealt with by the Commissioner, the matter needs to be remanded for correct quantification of the duty and rate of interest to be applied. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the first adjudication order, the Commissioner did not impose any pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the demand to the extent of ₹ 15,05,623/- only, along with interest @ 15% as due and payable. 5. The revenue is aggrieved with the above finding of the Commissioner. As per the revenue, the issue involved was remission of duty on the final product, stolen from the factory and was not relatable to the confirmation of demand of duty foregone in respect of imported raw material / inputs/ components etc. As such, Commissioner has mis-directed himself to confirm the demand of duty, foregone on various components in terms of notification No.137/.2000. 6. After hearing both sides, we find favour with the Revenues stand. Admittedly the litigation started with the appellants making a request to the Revenue for remission of duty on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
