2010 (12) TMI 1038

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3/97-CUS dated 3-6-1997 without payment of duty for manufacture of goods for export. The goods were stored in their registered premises, wherein a theft is reported to have taken place resulting in loss of indigenous goods valued at Rs. 8,93,925/- and imported goods valued at Rs. 19,91,821/-. The duty involved on the aforesaid goods was Rs. 1,45,889/- and Rs. 6,86,050/-. The lower authority issued show cause cum demand notice for recovery of aforesaid duties on the ground that the goods procured without payment of duty had not been used for the intended purpose and by the impugned orders confirmed the demands. 3. Aggrieved by these orders-in-original, the applicant filed appeals with the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of Customs, Bangalore v. Maini Granites Ltd. : 2005 (187) E.L.T. 55 (Tri. - Bang.) (ii)    Next Fashion Creators Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore : 2006 (206) E.L.T. 1015 (Tri. - Bang.) (iii)   Interface Connectronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 95 (iv)   G.K. Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Noida - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 136 (Tri. - Delhi) (v)     Bavaji and Motibhai v. Inspector of Central excise and Others - 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J282) (Cal.) 4.3 That the impugned order goes beyond the purview of the show cause notice as far as confirmation of demand pertaining to excise duty of Rs. 1,45,889/- is concerned. The impugned order states that the goods ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in the case of J.D. Shah v Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bangalore [1983 (12) E.L.T. 233] "Penal provisions not enforceable" if terms of bond are incapable of performance. If the terms of contract have been impossible to perform by the act of God or by an event which was beyond petitioner's control then the penal provisions of contract cannot be enforced against him." 4.5 That the impugned order is totally untenable and unsustainable in law in as much as the finding contained in the said order do not deal with the provisions of the said Act particularly Section 13 and 23 and Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules - Remission Provisions and the provisions of the said notification which clearly allowed remission on account of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....one the delay for the further period of 3 months and since the order was received by the applicants on 24-3-2008 the present revision application is being filed with further period of 3 months (in all 6 months) well before 24-9-2008 is, therefore, in time. 5. The case was listed for personal hearing on 18-8-2010 and 18-10-2010 but nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. 6. Government has considered the written submissions of the applicant and also perused the orders passed by the lower authorities. 7. From the perusal of records, Government observes that the revision application has been filed alongwith condonation of delay after the expiry of 3 months but within 3 months which can be condoned under Section 35EE of the....