KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides and perusal the records and perused the records.

(2.) The Commissioner rejected the application for remission of duty on the ground that "theft" would not fall within the ambit of remission of duty. I find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case Gupta Metal Sheets v. CCE, Gurgaon reported in, 2008 (232) ELT 796 (Tribunal -LB) held that theft or dacoity involving forcible removal of goods by violent or non -violent means, not constituting natural cause or unavoidable accident under Rule 49 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Hence, remission of duty is not eligible on the goods -theft or dacoity. Paras 12 and 13 of the abovementioned order are reproduced below: