2003 (9) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his appeal against the confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty in respect of excisable goods stolen from their factory premises and the penalty imposed on them. 2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Brass sheet/Circle/foils, etc.; that on the midnight of 7/8-1-2001 a theft occurred in their factory in respect of which a FIR was lodged with the pol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rejected their appeal holding that the Commissioner had already rejected their request for remission of duty, and if they were aggrieved by the said Order the appeal should have been filed by them. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that it has been held by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of G.K. Enterprises P. Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, [2003 (152) E.L.T. 136 (Tribunal) = 2003 (54) RLT 49 (CEGA....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndling or storage; that the theft of the goods from the factory cannot be regarded as an unavoidable accident. She relied upon the decision in the case of Golden Hills Estates (supra) wherein the Madras High Court has held that "theft cannot be said to be an accident by any stretch of imagination. When a person deliberately removes the goods for his own purposes without the knowledge of owner ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule 147 as it would amount to unavoidable accident. The Madras High Court held that "the word unavoidable accident is of crucial importance. Theft cannot be said to be an accident by any stretch of imagination." The Madras High Court further observed that "in Rule 225 there is a provision that if any excisable goods are removed by any person from the place where they are produced, manufactured or ....