Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 60 - AT - Central ExciseDiscrepancy in Finished Goods Register (RG-1) - goods were found in excess of the recorded balance in their RG I register - unfinished / incomplete goods - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that:- Findings of the adjudicating authority are at variance with what has been detailed in the said Hand Book. Further, the adjudicating authority has not explained in the impugned order as to why the samples were sent to Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU), Amritsar, instead of any other designated authority under the law. It is not brought on the record whether the persons who conducted the test were qualified to conduct the test and that whether their test report was acceptable under law and by what authority of law. It is also not brought on record what tests were carried out by the said person/ persons. It is also not brought out on record how the test report conducted on laundry soaps manufactured by the appellants. Thus the test report relied upon by the adjudicating authority becomes inadmissible under the law. Goods were found excess were not in complete finished condition as these goods were not packed and could not be entered in the statutory records. This fact has not been examined at the time of investigation. Therefore, the defence taken by the respondents is acceptable in the absence of corroborative evidence. Therefore, I do agree with the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that goods are not liable for confiscation. Accordingly, the proposal of confiscation of goods is set aside. Consequently, penalty, redemption fine are not imposable on the respondent. - no efforts were made by the revenue to reveal the truth by examining the manufacturing process to ascertain the raw material consumed and resulted output. Therefore, I hold that charge of clandestinely removal of goods is also not sustainable against the respondent in the absence of any contrary evidence against the respondent. - No infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld - Decided against Revenue.
|