TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iming to have paid the duty, there shall be no further levy of duty on the goods seized because seizure was also unwarranted when the goods were not found to be without evidence, nor evidence exist to hold attempt to clear excisable goods causing evasion of duty. Therefore, confiscation was unwarranted and redemption fine was not imposable. Penalty – evasion – Held that:- No evasion since the allegation failed to stand. But violation of law occurred for not recording the goods on Friday which calls for levy of penalty - penalty of Rs. 5,000/- shall be appropriate under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Except this penalty, no other penalty shall sustain - E/1734-1735/2011-SM(BR) - 530-531/2012-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 3-5-2012 - Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gister. So also, description was given about job worked goods. The authority below did not consider the evidence so given. But it went against the appellants holding that the goods are liable to confiscation. Even the appellant in Para 3 of reply to show cause notice made its stand clear that various raw materials were given for job work and such raw materials were job worked. 1.3 It was further submitted that there was no scope for suspicion to hold that there was an attempt to remove the finished goods without payment of duty since goods were found in the factory itself. It was also submission of Shri Narasimhan that from the day of search the stand of job work and issuance of raw material for such work as well as receipt of job worked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und to face confiscation and penalty. Hence, both stay applications and appeals are liable to be dismissed. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4.1 Investigation made on 27-8-2008 remained undisputed. Finding of unaccounted 480 sets of impugned goods in the factory of the appellant also remained undisputed. But more peculiar evidence that was suggested to investigation was about the origin and destination of job worked goods. The appellants did not fail to say how the goods came and from whom it came. Even though it was stated in the evidence recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944, investigation appears to choose to ignore the evidence relating to goods found in the course of investigation. No investigation was do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... history of manufacture to find out whether goods manufactured on Friday or goods job worked received on that day remained unaccounted till Monday. They also did not examine manufacturing record of Friday to arrive at a proper conclusion on the inventory of goods. Not only investigation but also adjudication proceeded baselessly and hypothetical adjudication was done. 4.3 In view of the above, the appellants claiming to have paid the duty, there shall be no further levy of duty on the goods seized because seizure was also unwarranted when the goods were not found to be without evidence, nor evidence exist to hold attempt to clear excisable goods causing evasion of duty. Therefore, confiscation was unwarranted and redemption fine was not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
