TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises. In my considered view, this seems to be very irrational and illogical way of coming to conclusion that the goods are liable for confiscation. The findings of the lower authorities as to the appellant has not cancelled and re-entered the said stock with proper intimation to the Department, cannot be the reason to hold that the goods were liable for confiscation as the confiscation of the goods can be made only if they are non-duty paid or duty liability has not been discharged. - goods are not liable to for confiscation - order set aside - decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No.E/727/2011 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2013 - Hon'ble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri R.V. Shetty, Adv. For the Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kgs (6254.40 Mtrs.) valued at Rs.4,68,951/-. The adjudicating authority also gave an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of Confiscation and imposed a penalty of Rs. 52,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed an appeal with the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No.RS/423/ VAPI/2008 remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority with directions for re-verifying the measurement and weight from the physical stock of seized goods available with the appellants and to take into consideration all the submissions made by them and dispose the matter accordingly. The adjudicating authority vide OIO No.32/JC/OA/VAPI/2010-11, dated 08.12.2010 ordered for confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e through the said invoice and also the entries made in PLA for debit of the duty liability. He would also submit that this quantity has been received by them from M/s Anant Syntex Ltd under invoice No.8 dt.19.04.2002. He would draw my attention to the said invoice and also the documents annexed to that invoice. He would submit that the entries of such goods received by the appellant were made in proper records and since they were demanding their goods, they discharged the duty liability vide invoice No.02 dt.01.05.2002. 5. Ld. Additional Commissioner (A.R.) would reiterate the findings of the lower authorities. 6. I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 7. The issue involved in this cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty paid on the ground that having paid the duty, the goods could not remain in the factory premises. In my considered view, this seems to be very irrational and illogical way of coming to conclusion that the goods are liable for confiscation. As has been narrated hereinabove by me, the entire movement of the MMF fabrics from M/s Anant Syntex Ltd to the hands of the appellant have been properly recorded and all the documentary evidences were available. The findings of the lower authorities as to the appellant has not cancelled and re-entered the said stock with proper intimation to the Department, cannot be the reason to hold that the goods were liable for confiscation as the confiscation of the goods can be made only if they are non-duty p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
