TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the clearance of glass bottles without payment of duty, which was actually broken during storage and handling. Three show cause notices were issued demanding duty of Rs. 7,50,299/-. The Original Authority confirmed the entire amount of duty and imposed penalty of equal amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the demand of duty and reduced to Rs. 6,31,585/- and penalty of equal amount of duty on the ground that the demand of duty for the period January, 2001 to March, 2002 is covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants submit that the broken bottles during the storage and handling are 0.15%. He further submits that the appellants mentioned the quantity in their returns time to time. He al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty bound to inform the department in time and to prove the facts of such losses and only then the proper officer, after making such inquiries, as he may deem fit, may allow remission of duty in case of claimed losses. He also submits that the case laws relied upon by the appellants is in respect of pet bottles but in the present case, it is glass bottles. He also submits that they have not mentioned the details of the broken bottles in their monthly ER-1 Returns and RT-12 Returns. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand for the period January, 2001 to March, 2002 as already decided by the Tribunal in their favour vide Final Order dated 6-3-2006. The Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time of storage and handling. The contention of the ld. DR is that the information given by the appellants is mis-leading, cannot be accepted. 6. I find that on the identical issue, the Tribunal in the appellants own case as reported in 2006 (201) E.L.T. 69 (Tribunal-Delhi) held as under :- 6. In the present case, no duty demand has been raised in regard to lost goods independent of remission applications of the assessee. The quantities claimed as lost due to breakage by the assessee are very insignificant and not even a fraction of a norm fixed in the Board Circular. Therefore, prima facie, the claim of the appellant looks bona fide and correct. As already noted, the Board s Circular makes it clear that breakages should be checked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
