9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory records. The final product was found is excess totally valued at Rs. 10,81,265/- involving Central Excise Duty of Rs. 7,38,443.00. Inasmuch as the said finished product was not entered in the RG-I register, the same was seized by the visiting officers under a proper Punchnama drawm on the spot. Shri Jai Kumar Arya, authorized representative, admitted that the finished product was found to be unaccounted for in their RG-I register and the same was in ready-to-dispatch condition. He could not explain any reason for non-account of these goods found in excess of recorded balance. 2. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of the show cause notice, dated 7-8-2008 proposing confiscation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erials, the shortages if any, in one of the raw material will not lead to the inevitable conclusion that the same has been cleared clandestine or has been utilized in the manufacture of the final product cleared without payment of duty. 7. As regards the final product, it is the appellant contention that with the seizure of the same and on account of long storage the goods have become unfit for human consumption and as such the appellant is not interested in redeeming the same. Consequential they are not required to pay any Central Excise Duty on the same. However, he submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the said goods were meant for clandestine removal so as to impose penalty of Rs. 7,38,443/- on the appellant. 8. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal wherein its stand held that in the absence of any evidence to show clearance of the same without payments of duty, imposition of penalty is not justified. Reference in this regard may be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Laxmi Vishnu Silk Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 356 (Tri.-Ahmd.) as also to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhubaneswar Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 1178 (Tri.-Kolkata). Similarly, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi v. Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 326 (Tri.-Mumbai) it was held that non entry of goods for statutory record even for a month, by itself, is not sufficient to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
