Ms. Jayantri Plastics Vs. Cce, Meerut-i - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....by the dy. commissioner (tech.) central excise, meerut, which is extracted below:- sub:- request for remission of duty on account of theft the factory premises reg. please refer to your letter dated 20.12.99 on the above subject. in this regard i am to inform you that your request for remission of duty has been rejected by the commissioner on the following ground: 1. procedure laid down in trade notice no.206/84 dated 01.12.84 of this commissionerate has not been followed as the intimation to the department was not given with in the prescribed time limit of 24 hrs. 2. adequate precautions were not taken to safeguard goods and the theft occurred due to your negligence.2. after hearing both the sides, i find that it is not a speaking appealable order.3. shri b.p. garg, advocate referred to the correspondence with the department with regard to the theft in their factory premises in the intervening nigh of 23-24/2/99. a show cause notice was issued demanding duty for which separaee proceedings are presently pending before the jurisdictional authorities. after a period of about 10 months, they wrote to the commissioner of central excise through the asstt. commissioner of central.....

Judgment:

1. The present appeal has been filed against a communication dated 18.10.2000 issued by the Dy. Commissioner (Tech.) Central Excise, Meerut, which is extracted below:- Sub:- Request for remission of duty on account of theft the factory premises reg.

Please refer to your letter dated 20.12.99 on the above subject. In this regard I am to inform you that your request for remission of duty has been rejected by the Commissioner on the following ground: 1. Procedure laid down in trade notice NO.206/84 dated 01.12.84 of this Commissionerate has not been followed as the intimation to the department was not given with in the prescribed time limit of 24 Hrs.

2. Adequate precautions were not taken to safeguard goods and the theft occurred due to your negligence.

2. After hearing both the sides, I find that it is not a speaking appealable order.

3. Shri B.P. Garg, Advocate referred to the correspondence with the Department with regard to the theft in their factory premises in the intervening nigh of 23-24/2/99. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty for which separaee proceedings are presently pending before the jurisdictional authorities. After a period of about 10 months, they wrote to the Commissioner of Central Excise through the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad for remission of duty and this communication was received in the office of the Asstt.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad on 20th December, 99.

4. The Commissioner has rejected their request on the ground that as per Trade Notice No.206/84 dated 01.12.84 intimation was required to be sent within the 24 hrs.

5. The appellant's counsel submitted that all along the matter was under correspondence with the Department and the appellants were advised late for filing request for remission and in the meanwhile the proceedings towards demand of duty had been initiated by the Department.

6. I find that as the appellants have made a request and as the law provided for taking cognizance of such a request, the matter should have been decided after following the principles of natural justice. I am passing no orders with regard to the merits of the case. The separate proceedings with regard to the demand of duty are not being interfered with at this stage as that is not before the Tribunal at present.

7. The request for remission has to be dealt with according to the law and the principles of natural justice be followed before passing the appropriate orders as per law. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Ordered accordingly.