9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the officers in presence of respondent's representative and it was found that the unit had two wire drawing machines and was engaged in the manufacture of copper wire but neither had obtained Central Excise Registration nor had given any declaration for availing the SSI exemption. The stock of finished goods in the factory, therefore, was placed under seizure. The statement of Shri Shyam Sawaria, owner of the respondent unit was recorded, wherein he stated that he was manufacturing copper wire for the last two-three months but can produce any documents with regard to starting of the unit, sale of finished goods or purchase of the raw material, that no such records are maintained, that he was receiving raw materials from various person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing of this matter had been sent to the respondent well in time, the same had been returned undelivered and on earlier occasions also the notice had been returned undelivered. In view of this, so far the respondent are concerned, this matter is being decided ex-parte. 2.1 Heard Departmental Representative who reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue's appeal, pleaded that in this case even if the respondent were eligible for SSI exemption no option in this regard had been exercised by them by filing a declaration to the Department, that the goods manufactured by the respondent were excisable goods attracting Central Excise duty and the same do not become fully exempt from duty under SSI exemption unless the manufacturer e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the same by filing the declaration to the department. In this case, admittedly no declaration had been made and on the contrary the respondent was not only not maintaining any record of production and sales but was also systematically destroyed the record of clearances of the finished goods. In view of this, the seized goods had been correctly confiscated and penalty had been correctly imposed on the respondent firm and as such the impugned order setting aside the confiscation of the seized goods and penalty on the respondent firm is not correct. The same is set aside and in this regard the Assistant Commissioner's order is restored. As regards, the penalty on Shri Shyam Sawaria, Proprietor of the respondent firm, since penalty on the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
