Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (7) TMI 504

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Sugandha Industries Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of calcium stearate falling under heading No. 2931.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants are also exporting the said product. The appellants factory was visited by the central excise officers on 17th and 18th of October, 2001. The officers on 18-10-2001 found 350 bags of manufactured calcium stearate belonging to the appellant in the premises of M/s. Anvil Cables Pvt. Ltd. 250 bags of the said final product was also seized from the respondents factory as the same were not entered in their statutory records. It is seen that subsequently the respondents themselves informed the Revenue that another 255 bags, which were not entered in their records was also lying i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . I have heard Shri T.K. Kar, ld. SDR for the Revenue and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, ld. adv. along with Shri Hasmukh Kundalia, ld. adv. for the respondents. They have reiterated the same submissions which were made before the authorities below. In respect of 350 bags the appellants contention is that on 10th September, 2001 the Appellant Company filed Shipping Bill for export of 625 bags containing 25,000 kgs. of the said goods being Bag Nos. 116376 to 117000 at the Custom House, Kolkata, which had been provisionally assessed prior to shipment. On or about 11th October, 2001 all the records including the Stock Register, statutory records and various other documents were lost in transit from the Appellant Company s factory to the Administrativ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icle for the loading of the remaining goods (i.e. 275 bags). In the meantime, Officers of DRI, Kolkata visited the Appellant Company s factory and carried out search. Because of the said search operation, the factory staff were attending the search operation. In the said circumstances, it was not possible to load the said container with the remaining goods meant for export. The Appellant Company felt that there might be an inordinate delay in export of said export consignment. The Appellant Company, therefore, felt that it would be fit and proper to off load the said partially loaded container to avoid container detention charge and release of the said container. Accordingly, the said 350 bags of Calcium Stearate which were already loaded i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to confiscation, but quantum of fine imposed by the original adjudicating authority is on the higher side. He accordingly reduced the amount to Rs. 50,000/-. 7. I find that the respondents contention is that the above goods were meant for export. The Additional Commissioner vide his impugned order had only confiscated the goods, but surprisingly no duty has been confirmed by him, if the original adjudicating authority was of the view that the goods have been removed clandestinely and was convinced enough not to accept the respondents contention, it is not understood as to why in that case duty involved in respect of the said bags was not confirmed by him. This fact by itself shows that the appellants contention about the said bags hav .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) = 1997 (18) RLT 138 (CEGAT - NB) and in the case of Kanthal India Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 385 (T) = 1999 (31) RLT 547 (CEGAT). He has also observed that if the respondents are having any mala fide intention, they would not have voluntarily brought the anomaly in respect of counting the bags to the notice of the Asstt. Commr. of Central Excise and would have cleared the same without payment of duty. This fact shows that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee and there is also no evidence on record to show that the goods were meant for clandestine removal without payment of duty. In these circumstances the Commissioner (Appeals) s findings that the said goods are not liable to confiscation are required to be up .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates