9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods stock were maintained upto 21-7-2010 and Cenvat credit availment was shown upto 10-7-2010 on inputs. The inputs are raw material of 2300 kgs which was found unaccounted in their factory and finished goods of the value of Rs. 1,17,421/- was found unaccounted comprising duty of Rs. 12,094/-. After recording the statement, the goods were seized and a show cause notice was issued to allege that the inputs were lying unaccounted in their records. The appellant is liable to pay duty thereon and finished goods which were lying in their factory are also liable for confiscation which can be cleared on payment of duty and redemption fine on both the goods were proposed to be imposed and various penalties to be imposed on the main appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they are not making records regularly. Only on this basis, the case has been made out against the appellant and there is no evidence brought on record that there was an intent of the appellant to clear the goods clandestinely. Therefore, he prayed that the goods are not liable for confiscation as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of C.C.E. v. Pharma Indiana Laboratory - 2009 (238) E.L.T. 743 (Guj.), in the case of C.C.E., Calicut v. Steel Complex Ltd. - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 512 (Tri.-Bang.) and in the case of C.C.E., Vapi v. Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 326 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. On the other hand ld. AR opposes the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that appellant is required to maintain their sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... going through the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Pharma Indiana Laboratory (supra) wherein the issue before the Hon'ble High Court was that whether the CESTAT was right in upholding Commissioner (A) order that Revenue has not proved the entry in RG-1 was not made with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore penalty imposable under Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 was not warranted. In that case Hon'ble High Court observed in paras 3, 4, 5 & 6 as under : "3. The Commissioner (A) has recorded the following findings of facts : "Since no clandestine removal and intention to evade duty has been established, and the appellants at the personal hearing held on 9-12-1999 through Advocate Shri R. Part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the circumstances, no question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less a substantial question of law, can be said to arise out of impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal accordingly dismissed." 7. Further, in the case of well Steel Complex Ltd. (supra) I find that this Tribunal has observed that there is no evidence that the accounts were not maintained with an intent to evade duty and it was the view of the Tribunal that this is a sample case of non-maintenance of accounts. In these circumstances, Tribunal came to the conclusion that redemption fine and penalty is not imposable. Further, I find that in the case of Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed that there is nothing on record to indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
