Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (3) TMI 1145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ence has been produced by the Revenue to establish the intent of the appellant to remove the goods clandestinely. Therefore, following the decisions of Steel Complex Ltd., Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. [2005 (10) TMI 160 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ] and Pharma Indiana Laboratory (2008 (7) TMI 430 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD ) hold that in this case provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 have not been complied with. Therefore, goods are not liable for confiscation. Consequently, redemption fine and penalty is not imposable on the appellant and penalty on Shri Harish Kumar Sharma is not imposable under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. - Decided in favour of assessee - E/59512 & 59337-59338/2013-EX(SM) - Final Order Nos. A/51 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osed. Later on a corrigendum was issued with regard to appropriation of redemption fine by encashing the bank guarantee executed at the time of release of the goods. Said order was challenged by the appellant before the ld. Commissioner (A) who confirmed the adjudication orders. Aggrieved from these orders appellants are before me. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case provisions of Rule 25(1)(B) has been invoked and as per Rule 25(1)(B) raw material cannot be confiscated. Consequently, redemption fine and penalty is not imposable. To support his contention he relied on the decision in the case of Narmada Fabrics P. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Surat - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 397 (Tri.-Ahmd.), in the case of Camex Intermediates Ltd .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ircumstances, goods are liable for confiscation and consequently penalty is imposable. He also submits that the appellant being a private company should be more vigilant and it is required by them to maintain their record properly on daily basis as compared to departmental officers. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel are not appreciable. He further relied on the decision in the case of K.K. Polycolor India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Haldia - 2013 (290) E.L.T. 81 (Tri.-Kol.) to say that the redemption fine and penalty is also imposable on raw material as these raw materials are cenvatable. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case, at the time of the visit the accounts books were not found maintained, pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ring to excise department who will thereafter entering in the RG 1. The internal delivery Challan for this was produced which shows that it has been signed on 28-12-1992 for production. Therefore, I do not find any mala fides in the non-entry of the bottles in dispute. As regards Niacin Technical the same has not been established to have reached marketability or that it has passed the Drugs Act Tests. Therefore, it was not required to be entered. As regards 500 Kgs Niacin the explanation of the goods not removed due to X-mus holiday in M/s. German Remady which is a reasonable explanation and can be delivered. The finding on the same are an assumption and cannot be supported. 4. Thus it is apparent that on same set of facts and circumsta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uld wish to remove the same and not avail the risk of detection by keeping the same in his factory unaccounted for a month and this Tribunal held that in the absence of any intention redemption fine and penalty is not imposable. 8. After going through the show cause Notice and the impugned order the allegation against the appellant is that the goods lying in their factory are unaccounted and not entered in the statutory records since 21-7-2007 and till the date of visit that is 3-8-2010. On the basis of these, intent was drawn that these were lying in the factory for clandestine removal of the goods. No corroborative evidence has been produced by the Revenue to establish the intent of the appellant to remove the goods clandestinely. Ther .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates