TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot correct and allow the appeal - Appeal Nos. E/2264-2265/05-SM - Final Order Nos. 910-911/2007-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 17-4-2007 - [Order per] - Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of rolled products of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal. 3. The learned D.R. on behalf of the Revenue submits that in these cases, excess ingots were meant for clandestine removal after rolling the same. So the adjudicating authority rightly imposed redemption fine and penalty upon the respondents. He further submits that the respondent No. 2 Shri Andesh Gupta, Director of the respondent company had clear knowledge of the excess stock o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi -II, 2006 (202) E.L.T. 461 (Tri. - Delhi). 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, it is revealed from the adjudication order that the respondents categorically submitted before the adjudicating authority that the discrepancy occurred due to the fact that they have not physically verified the stock of inputs for the last one month. This fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le is not attracted. In the instant case, raw material i.e. 11.807 MT of ingots have been confiscated under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Provisions of Rule 25 are identical to provisions of Rule 173Q. So following the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal cited supra, confiscation of 11.807 MT of ingots is set aside. Accordingly, penalty imposed upon both the appellants is also set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
