TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per Mathew John: The Respondents were manufacturers of Mild Steel Round Bars and Strips. During 2002-03, they were availing exemption under notification 8/2002-CE dated 01-03-2002 providing exemption for SSI units. 2. On 24-01-03, the department conducted a verification of stocks and entries in their books of accounts. The officers found excess of 83.204 MTs of MS Bars not accounted in the books of accounts. The department was also of the view that the Respondent had crossed the exemption limit of Rs. One crore prescribed in the notification 8/2002-CE when clearances for the period 01-04-2002 to 24-01-2003 were considered. The department was also of the view that M/s Balajee Steels and M/s J. K. Steels, two trading units, were in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parties. Further the Commissioner (Appeal) also held that that the seizure itself was bad in law and therefore set aside the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty. Aggrieved by the finding that the seizure was bad in law Revenue has filed this appeal. It is to be noted that there is no appeal against the finding that the Respondents had not crossed the exemption limit on the date of the verification and there is no duty to be demanded from the Respondents. 5. The Ld. DR submits that the Commissioner (Appeal) had held that process of weighing was not correctly done and for this procedural defect only the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the seizure. He submits that the weighing process was started at 10.30 Hrs on 24-01-03 and concl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the seizure to be valid. For the sake of clarity the prayer is reproduced below: It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon ble Tribunal may pass either the suitable orders for setting aside the Order-in-Appeal No. 76 to 80-CE/ALLD/2009 dated 22.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Allahabad to the extent of holding the seizure invalid on the grounds of vitiated process of weighment or necessary orders may be issued as deemed fit. 9. I have considered the arguments on either side and scrutinized the panchnama dated 24-01-03 drawn at the factory, and the finding of the Commissioner (Appeal) on the issue is as under: Now, I have to examine the case in the light of the terms of remand as well as the ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
