2009 (12) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder]. - The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of inserts (Chapter 82 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule). On 19-8-1992, they reported that 2477 units of inserts having assessable value of Rs. 68,079.97 and involving duty of Rs. 15,658.39 had been found missing from their bonded warehouse despite tight security control. In a subsequent report dated 7-9-1992, they stated that 5207 inserts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... held them liable to pay interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act. This order of adjudication was passed on 30-5-2003. The party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said order. While this appeal was pending, the appellant received a letter dated 31-3-2006 of the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I, wherein it was communicated that their application f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate himself. The Larger Bench held that theft or dacoity was neither a natural cause nor an unavoidable accident and, therefore, goods lost in theft or dacoity were not eligible for remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the instant case, the assessee even failed to prove theft of the goods in question. They chose to pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the demand of interest under Section 11AA and the levy of penalty under Rule 173Q. The relevant show-cause notice did not expressly demand any such interest, as rightly noted by the appellant in the memo of appeal. The learned SDR has argued that, where an amount of duty was determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Act, the assessee's liability to pay interest thereon would follo....