2009 (3) TMI 445 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Denial of Duty Remission for Theft: Theft Not an Unavoidable Accident

KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, in 2009 (3) TMI 445, upheld the Commissioner's decision to reject an application for duty remission due to ... Remission of duty- The Commissioner rejected the application for remission of duty on the ground that “theft“ would not fall within the ambit of remission of duty. In the light of the decision of case Gupta Metal Sheets v. CCE, Gurgaon, held that- there is no merit in the Appeal filed by the appellant. Thus the appeal filed by the appellant rejected. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, under the citation 2009 (3) TMI 445, heard an appeal where the Commissioner rejected an application for remission of duty due to theft, citing a precedent set by the Larger Bench in the case of Gupta Metal Sheets v. CCE, Gurgaon. The Tribunal ruled that theft or dacoity does not constitute an unavoidable accident under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, and thus goods lost in such incidents are not eligible for remission. The appeal was subsequently rejected based on this decision. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court on 25-3-2009. The judgement was delivered by Shri P.K. Das, Member (J), with Shri Kapil Vaish representing the Appellant and Shri R.K. Saini representing the Respondent. The decision was made after hearing both sides and perusing the records. The Tribunal referred to similar views expressed in various cases reinterpretations, including Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, B.G. Dhatu Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal held that the issue was answered in the negative in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. Overall, the appeal and the appeal were dismissed by the Tribunal.