TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... day and which would have been entered in the RG-1 register next day - Respondent were producing on an average 15.6 M.T. of laminated fabrics in a day. The Panchnama does not show as to whether for determining the excess unaccounted production of laminated fabrics, the fabrics in unpacked condition has also been included. Looking to the fact that every day, the factory manufacturers 15.6 M.T. of laminated fabrics and on any day in addition to this, there was some quantity of laminated fabricated in unpacked condition - There was no excess stock and that the stock which is alleged to be unaccounted excess stock would have been entered in the RG-1 register on the next day – Decided against the Revenue. - Appeal No. 3768 of 2012 (SM) - - - Dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit have been initiated, in this case, we are concerned only with the proceedings initiated by the department for confiscation of the alleged excess stock of laminated fabrics and woven sacks. According to the department, since the excess stock of the laminated fabrics and woven sacks would be liable for confiscation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, after issue of show cause notice, the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 1/2/12 ordered confiscation of the above-mentioned excess stock of laminated fabrics and woven sacks holding that the same was not recorded in the RG-1 register. He, however, gave an option to the respondent to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evious day s production which has not been recorded in the RG-1 register. In respect of woven sacks also she pleaded that excess stock of 23500 found represents the production of more than one day which obviously had not been recorded in the RG-1 register. She, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri A. Upadhyay, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that both, the production of 17.822 M.T. of laminated fabrics and 2350 woven sacks represents the production of about 9 hours from 8 am to 5 p.m. on 30th January 2010 and also the goods in unpacked condition which cannot be treated as in finished condition fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) which are not disputed, the respondent were producing on an average 15.6 M.T. of laminated fabrics in a day. The Panchnama does not show as to whether for determining the excess unaccounted production of laminated fabrics, the fabrics in unpacked condition has also been included. Looking to the fact that every day, the factory manufacturers 15.6 M.T. of laminated fabrics and on any day in addition to this, there was some quantity of laminated fabricated in unpacked condition, I agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no excess stock and that the stock which is alleged to be unaccounted excess stock would have been entered in the RG-1 register on the next day. I, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
