9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order]. - Both the appeals are arising out a common order and, therefore, these are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Copper Wires and Copper Wire Bars classifiable under Chapter 74 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. On 3rd February, 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enhancement of penalty and confiscation. 4. The learned DR reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that admittedly excess quantity of raw materials and finished goods were found against the recorded balance of stock registers. He also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not followed the decision of the High Court. 5. The learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents, reit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, the relevant portion of the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below :- "I have carefully examined the case records including the appellants submissions made in writing and at the time of personal hearing and observe that the Adjudicating Authority has confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 3,12,198/- out of which Rs. 2,33,076/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounted. It has been held that penalty can be imposed. In the present case, no Cenvat credit was availed on the raw materials. In the case of Mohindra Enterprises (supra), it has been held that assessee was neither a producer nor registered producer or dealer but merely a user of raw material, hence goods cannot be called excisable goods in terms of Section 2(d) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
