Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner Central Excise

2016 (12) TMI 474 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Remission of duty - Rule 49 (1) (A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that: - as per the units own statement, the clandestine removal or theft as they call it took place in April 2001 and they filed an FIR only in October 2001 i.e. after 6 months. What took them so long to inform the police is not forthcoming. Moreover, they never informed the department about the said "theft" and the department on its own, based on the news item in the local news paper, took further action which culminat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issue whether 'thefts' would fall with the ambit of cases to which remission duty can be claimed, for which they have cited some case laws, I find that the remission application is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. - Appeal disposed off - decided in favor of Department. - Central Excise Appeal No. 281 of 2009 - Dated:- 29-11-2016 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ. For the Appellant : Shakeel Ahmad For the Respondent : Amit Mahajan,CSC,Sp Kesharwani O .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s ground. (ii) Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant that loss of molasses stolen is condonable under Rule-49 of Central Excise Rules, 1954. (iii) Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ignored to appreciate that theft of goods is an unavoidable accident and as such remission of duty should have been allowed by the authorities below." The facts of the case are that the appellant is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te pass and Central Excise invoices without making entries in the excise records. According to the assessee on account of this theft a loss was occurred to the business of the assessee and therefore an F.I.R. was lodged after six months on 14.10.2001. Subsequently, an application for remission was filed by the assessee after a period of four years in the year 2005 on 24.6.2005. The application for the remission was filed under Rule 49 (1) (A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which reads hereun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or for marketing subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the commissioner by order in writing." The Commissioner has rejected the said remission application. He noted in his order: "In this case as per the units own statement, the clandestine removal or theft as they call it took place in April 2001 and they filed an FIR only in October 2001 i.e. after 6 months. What took them so long to inform the police is not forthcoming. Moreover, they never informed the department about th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version