TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal arises from the order dated 11-2-1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants are manufacturers of watches. They informed the department in the R.T. 12 Returns of December 1989 about the alleged theft of 4274 pieces of wrist watches from the department. The theft is supposed to have occurred on 25-11-1989 as per the FIR filed by the appellant. As per Rule 147 of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n on such delay. The ld. Collector (Appeals) also confirmed the findings. The ld. Collector also did not accept the plea of theft for the reasons given by him in the impugned order. 2. I have heard ld. Advocate, Shri Rahul Roy for the appellants and Shri P. Dass, ld. SDR for the revenue. On a careful consideration of the plea and on examination of the records, I am not satisfied with the pleas r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the discovery of such loss of the goods. In the present case, the appellants had not been diligent and had also not informed the department immediately on lodging the FIR but they have taken their own time to inform the department through the R.T. 12 returns. Even after the show cause notice was issued they did not come up with the defence for seven months. The appellants had informed about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
