CHANDRIKA PRASAD SURAJ PRASAD Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the manufacturers of Sandal Wood Oil falling under Chapter heading No. 3301.00. They informed the jurisdictional Central Excise Range Officer on 11.1.1995 that a theft had taken place in their bonded godown in the night of 10/11.1.1995 as a result of which 233.400 Kgs. of Semi Finished Sandal Wood Oil had been stolen. The Police recovered 49.000 Kgs. of oil out of stolen goods. However, the party was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 21.7.1995 proposing to demand a duty amounting to Rs. 1,88,900.00 from them relating the aforestated good. On considering the reply of the party, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Farrukhabad Division vide his Order dated 17.12.1997 dropped the demand. The department filed an appeal against the above order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad in his Order dated 10.11.1999 observed that the Commissioner of Central Excise is the only authority competent to consider the case of the party for remission of duty on account of theft under Rule 49. He observed that though the party had filed a FIR with the Police but they never applied/approached for remission of duty on the lost goods by theft in the factory to the Commissioner. Thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 49 and 147 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and para 264 of Basic Excise Manual. He further observed that the Assistant Commissioner had exceeded the authority beyond his jurisdiction. Consequently he set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeal of the department.