New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 661 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (12) TMI 661 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Excess stock found during stock taking - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Penalty under Rule 26 - Held that:- Whatsoever method was adopted by the Central Excise officers and as a result variations of stock was found. If the appellant is not satisfied with method of stock taking, they had liberty to dispute method and would have suggested other method of stock taking. However the appellant has not raised any such dispute. Therefore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

able for excise duty. If the same have already been cleared, the said duty shall stand adjusted towards the duty liability of the said goods and if the goods are still lying in the factory as and when the goods is cleared this duty shall be treated as payment of duty on the clearance of the said goods. As regard the penalty, I observed that excise duty at the time of seizure of the goods was not payable, consequently penalty under Section 11AC also wrongly imposed. However since goods were confi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

umbai Zone-I, wherein Ld. Commissioner upheld the Order-in-Original No. 151/2007-08 dated 28/9/2007 and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. The fact of the case is that on the visit of officers of Central Excise Headquarters(Prev), Central Excise, Thane I, Commissionarate to the unit of the appellant on 28/3/2006, it was found excess stock of 61 MT of M.S. Ingots in the factory as against recorded stock in RG1 register. The said excess stock was found on stock verification by the officer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated into Order-in-Original dated 28/9/2007, wherein following order was passed: Order 1. I confiscate 61 M.T. of M.S. Ingots valued at ₹ 10,98,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. I allow these goods to be redeemed on payment of an amount of ₹ 3,30,000/- . 2. I confirm the demand of ₹ 1,79,194/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. I appropriate the amount of ₹ 1,79,194/- paid by the assessee vide TR 6 Challan No. 14/05-06 dated 05.04.0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal the appellant filed this appeal. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. I observed that the matter was earlier listed for hearing on 23/1/2015, 13/3/2015 and even today when the matter was called for no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. This shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing their appeal. However in the interest of justice, I am taking up appeal for final disposal on the ground of appeal made in the appeal memorandum as als .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the factory premises of the appellant the representative of the appellant was present who signed the panchanama. As regard excess stock of 61 MT of M.S Ingots the appellant has not raised any objection on spot. He further submits that director of the appellant company in his statement recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act accepted the excess stock, therefore confiscation of the goods was correctly upheld by the lower appellate authority. On query from the bench that confirmation of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4(165) ELT 566(Tri-del.) (c) Complex Steels (P) Ltd. vs. CCE[1995(79) ELT 698(Tribunal) (d) Bajrang Petro Chemicals (P) Ltd Vs. CCE[2014-TIOL-2254-HC-ALL-CX)] 3. I have carefully considered the ground of appeal made in the appeal memorandum as well as the submission made by Learned A.R. 4. In this case during stock verification by the Central Excise officer, the stock of 61 MT of M.S. ingots was found in excess as against the recorded stock in RG1 register. During the stock verification and reco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tock taking, they had liberty to dispute method and would have suggested other method of stock taking. However the appellant has not raised any such dispute. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, the excess stock found in the stock verification could not be disputed merely on verbal explanation. The appellant during the seizure of the goods could have represented for re-checking of the stock, which was not opted by the appellant. In view of this position, I am of the view that ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eason that excise duty is payable only at the time of clearance of the goods. In the present case it is undisputed fact that the excess stock was lying admittedly in the factory and was not cleared from the factory, therefore confirmation of demand and consequential penalty under Section 11AC is not correct. However the goods are very much liable for excise duty. If the same have already been cleared, the said duty shall stand adjusted towards the duty liability of the said goods and if the good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version