Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Kothari Wire Industries vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 8 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT III CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 2557 OF 2007-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 247(GRM) CE/JPR-I/2007 dated 13.8.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Kothari Wire Industries Appellants Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellants; Shri S.N. Srivastava, D.R. for the Revenue Coram:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial), Date of hearing/decision: 8th July, 2009 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per P.K. Das:
After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, learned Advocate fairly submits that the issue involved in this case is demand of duty on rejection of remission application in respect of theft. He submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gupta Metal Sheets vs. CCE, Gurgaon, reported in 2008 (232) ELT 796 (Tri.-LB) held that theft or dacoity not a natural cause and not an unavoidable accident Goods lost in theft or dacoity is not eligible for remission. He submits that the issue was interpretation of law and was decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and, therefore, imposition of penalty is not warranted.
2. I find that the appeal relates to the demand of duty of Rs. 41,289/- and imposition of penalty. Further, in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, learned Advocate is not contesting the demand of duty. As the issue relates to the interpretation of law penalty is not warranted. Accordingly, demand of duty is upheld and penalty is set aside. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK