9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that appellant-I, is an SSI unit, engaged in the manufacture of M.S. hot rolled bars falling under Chapter-72 of CETA, 1985. The appellant-I, is registered with central excise department to manufacture above said excisable goods. The appellant-I, is also availing SSI exemption during the year 2010-11. On the basis of an intelligence, Central Excise, Preventive, Officers visited the unit of the Appellant-I on 18.08.2010 and inquiry made with the driver of one truck No. GJ 04U 7039 regarding the unloading of 4 old and used plates from the said truck in the premises of the Appellant-I's unit ad a search on the same day was also carried out at the said premises. The invoice No. 665 dated 17.08.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty, read with proviso to section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty of Rs.8,733/- imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules on the appellant-I and imposed penalty of Rs.1000/- on the appellant-Il under Rule 26 (1) of Central Excise Ru1es, 2002. 3. Aggrieved by such an order of adjudicating authority, appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority has held that there is no liability to discharge the duty on the said steel plates which were received by the main appellant herein and cleared by unit in Alang Ship Yard Ltd., as duty liability was discharged by coming to a conclusion he has set aside the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said goods were duty paid by one of the unit in Alang Ship Yard Ltd. 8. The next question arises is that goods are liable for confiscation under the provision of Rule 25, I find that the goods which are liable for confiscation and contemplated in provisions of Rule 25 are the finished excisable goods from manufacturer or warehouser or registered dealer. 9. I find that there is no dispute that whatever is received is a raw material for consumption by the appellant in his factory premises and it is duty paid. The confiscation thereof under provisions of Rule 25 is not in consonance of law as has been settled by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. I may, with respect, reproduce the relevant p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Penalty on Shri Mukesh Kumar Hari Kishan, Gupta, Director is however set aside. 2. It is further seen that the lower authorities have confiscated under-processed goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 6 lakhs. The appellants have contested that there is no provision for confiscation of raw materials or semi-finished goods and Rule 173Q/Rule 25 provides for confiscation of finished goods only. For the above proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Birla Yamaha Works v. C.C.E., Meerut reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 194 (Tri-Del.). We agree with the learned Advocate that Rule 25, under which the semi-finished processed goods has been confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
