TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Item 11-B of the Central Excise Tariff on the grounds that these goods were stolen from their warehouse on the night of 15/16-5-1977. In support of their prayer, they contend that these goods were stolen and in this case of theft, the duty on these goods should have been remitted in terms of Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They, further, submit that the action of the lower authorities to treat this case as one falling under Rule 160 and demanding duty under Rule 9(2) is not correct. In support of their contentions, they have relied on Section 23 of the Customs Act, that provisions of which are analogous to those of Rule 147 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and they further submit that the ratio of the Delhi High Court s judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he grounds that his reliance on Rule 9(2) is incorrect. In brief, they submit that the point for decision is that whether their right of remission is taken away if the notice for loss is not given within 48 hours as per proviso to Rule 147. For the reasons adduced by them, they urge that they are entitled to remission as the goods have not been restored to them and pray for allowing their appeal. 2. The departmental representative has opposed the submissions of the appellants. He has argued that under the proviso to Rule 147, the notice of loss was not taken within 48 hours and this proviso is a necessary condition to the grant of relief under Rule 147. Under the proviso, the Collector does not have any discretion to extend the time limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demand for duty has been made under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is the contention of the appellants that Rule 9 is not applicable to their case but Rule 147 applies. Subjecting this contention to scrutiny, it is seen that under Rule 9, the goods can be removed from the manufacturing premises to a warehouse licensed under Rule 140 under the first proviso to Rule 9(1). If, therefore, any goods are removed without payment of duty from a warehouse licensed under Rule 140, such removal is in contravention of Rule 9(1) and therefore it attracts the provisions of sub-rule (2). Therefore, in our view, Rule 9 has been properly and correctly invoked by the Assistant Collector as this is not a case of loss through unavoidable accide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
