9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 23-8-2004 that upheld the order-in-original which confiscated the goods found in excess and imposed penalty on the appellant. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturers of sugar and molasses. The appellants store molasses in closed tanks as well as in open pits. During the visit of the Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority and upheld the order-in-original. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the confiscation and imposition of penalty is not warranted as it was recorded at the time of verification of stock itself that the increase in the stock was due to excess rain water which got accumulated during the rains. It is also submitted that there is no alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the open pit. Storing of molasses in open pit is permitted activity in respect of sugar factories and there is no dispute that appellant had permission to store molasses in open pit. It is also undisputed that the excess stock was due to rain water that got accumulated in the open pit. The Revenue has not disputed this fact and has also not alleged in the show cause notice that there was inten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- as the appellants have at the most not considered the excess stock for accountal purpose. 6. Having held that excess stock is liable for confiscation and it is found from records that there is no intention on the part of the appellants to clear the said goods without payment of duty, penalty imposed on the appellant is not warranted and penalty is set aside. 7. Accordingly, in view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
