2013 (10) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he DGCEI officers to the appellants unit on 20th October 2010, stock of the finished goods as well as raw material was checked. According to the officers there was excess stock of 194.4 kg. of finished product valued at Rs. 4,724/- and there was excess stock of inputs valued at Rs. 6,22,125/-. The excess stock of inputs as well as finished goods was placed under seizure. Subsequently, it was ordered to be confiscated by the Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 12/9/11 with option to be redeemed on redemption fine of Rs. 1,67,000/- and beside this, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on Shri Bhupesh Bansal, Managing Director under Rule 26. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals), this order of the Assistant Commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t in this regard, he relies upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Unimark Remedies Ltd. vs. CCE, Vapi reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 49 (Tri. -Mumbai), wherein it was held that there is no provision in Central Excise law for confiscation of unaccounted raw material, that at the time of the officers visit to the factory, the appellant's unit was under full duty exemption and, hence, for non-maintenance of proper records, the goods were not liable for confiscation and penalty could not be imposed and in this regard he relies upon the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Taxel Bearings vs. CCE & C, Rajkot reported in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 517 (Tri. - Ahmd.), and that in view of this, the impugned order upholding the redemption fine and pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s no dispute that allegation of excess stock of finished goods is based on determination of weight by visiting officers who had not determined by actual weighment. Since, there was no actual weighment, there may be some variation between the estimated weight and the recorded weight and, as such, in my view, the confiscation of finished goods valued at Rs. 44,744/- and imposition of penalty on this count. Since neither the seized inputs nor the seized finished goods are liable for confiscation, there is no justification for penalty on Shri Bhupesh Bansal under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is also not sustainable. 8. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeals as wel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X