TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 970
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Parts and Parts of Ticket issuing machine shafts for M.V. The applicant reported on 10-4-2009 the theft of excisable goods valued to Rs. 5,96,434/- from his manufacturing premises on 6-3-2009, for which FIR was also filed. The applicant vide his letter dated 21-5-2009 furnished details of goods lost in theft to the department stating therein the amount of Central Excise duty involved on such stolen goods. The stolen goods, being manufactured goods, were liable to duty in terms of provisions of Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the applicant was liable to pay such amount of duty on removal of the same from his premises in the manners as provided in the Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The manufactured goods stolen on 6-3-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stify the confirmation of demand. The applicant has suffered the loss of goods. The applicant has still deposited the duty involved amounting to Rs. 49,147/-. 4.2 The Commissioner has overlooked the facts that to attract penalty under Rule 25, the basic step is to establish removal of goods in contravention of the provisions of the Rules. Theft has occurred in spite of the preventive steps taken by the applicant. Demand of duty for want of remission permission does not imply that it can be treated as removal in contravention of the Rules. Removal in contravention by the applicant has to be established by the department by bringing out evidence on record. This is not the case that the applicant had removed the stolen goods. Rule 25 is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that the incident of theft of goods in the applicant factory premises was intimated to jurisdictional Central Excise authorities along with copy of FIR lodged with police. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty involved in such stolen goods observing violation of Rule (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and also in terms of provisions contained in para 2.7 of chapter 18 of C.B.E. & C.'s Central Excise Manual. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned Order-in-Original. Now applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government finds that the original authority had confirmed the demand of duty involved in stolen goods on ....