Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Arising Out Of The Order-In-Appeal No. ... vs Cce, Delhi-Iv on 4 April, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 4.4.2012
Excise Appeal No. 2846 of 2007-SM
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 80/CE/Appl/DLH-IV/2007 dated 8.8.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-IV]
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? Yes
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes
3. Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
M/s Aspen Online Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-IV Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for Appellant : Shri K.K. Sharma, Advocate
Appeared for Respondent : Shri R.K. Gupta, A.R.
CORAM: Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
Order No.dated.
Per Mathew John :
The appellants are manufacturers of aluminum ingots. The Appellants informed the excise department and the police department on 18-01-2003 that there was a theft of excisable goods from the factory on the night of 17th / 18th January 2003 and there was loss of 860 Kgs of aluminum ingots, 3412 kgs of aluminum scrap and 1009 Kgs of Copper scrap. On 18-03-2003 the party informed the excise department that the police recovered 500 Kgs of aluminum Ingots.
2. The Revenue issued Show cause Notice demanding excise duty on 360 Kgs of aluminum Ingots, 3412 Kgs of aluminum scrap and 1009 Kgs of copper scrap involving excise duty of Rs.42869.20 along with interest and penalties. The demand was adjudicated confirming the duty demand of Rs. 42869 along with interest and imposing penalty of Rs. 42869/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal filed with the Commissioner (Appeal) he set aside the penalty but confirmed the duty demanded. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) Appellants have filed this appeal.
3. The Appellants submit that the adjudication order was passed without hearing them and thus in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also argued that loss by unavoidable accident includes theft and the duty involved should have been remitted under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules 2002.
4. The Ld AR for Revenue submits that there was no application filed by the appellants for remission of duty. He further points out that the Tribunal has already decided that theft cannot be considered as unavoidable cause for granting remission of duty. He relies on the following decisions:
(i) Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd CCE- 2003 (1564) ELT 557;
(ii) BG Dhatu Udyog Ltd Vs. CCE-2003 (158) ELT 624.
5. The Ld. A. R. Points out that the appellants did not file any application for remission of duty and did not appear before the adjudicating authority. Even before the first appellate authority the appellant appeared on 17-04-07 but did not produce the details of insurance claim filed and amounts received.
6. There is only a short point involved in this case which is already decided against the appellant. Further it is seen that the appellants were not prompt to exercise his rights by filing application for remission of duty and did not reply to SCN and even when they got opportunity before the Commissioner (Appeal), they did not submit necessary details regarding insurance claims made and sanctioned. On the whole the appellant had not been diligent in the matter at all. Natural justice cannot be thrust upon a person who is not vigilant. The amount involved also very small and further protracted proceedings in the matter is not necessary.
7. So I refuse interfere with the Order-in-Appeal and reject the appeal filed against it.
(Pronounced in Court) (Mathew John) Member (Technical)