9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical verification of the fabrics lying in the factory premises reveal certain discrepancy. The officers conducted physical verification of the fabrics lying in the factory premises at different stages of processing such as grey, semi/ fully processed and on comparison of the physical stock of processed fabrics with the balance shown in records and job cards maintained by them, a quantity of 8,030.80 Mtrs fully processed fabrics valued at Rs. 4,81,848/- was found manufactured out of the unaccounted grey fabrics as the piece were neither reflected in the job cards nor the finished fabrics was found entered in finished goods (RG-1) register. Similarly 1,902.95 Mtrs of fully processed fabrics valued at Rs. 1,14,777/- was also found unaccounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ics in Form IV register and lot register clearly establishes that processed fabrics in Form IV register and lot register clearly establishes that processed fabrics was made with intention to clear them without accountal, without payment of duty, without documents. This confirms that there was clear intention to evade payment of duty on 8,030.80 Mtrs processed fabrics. As regards appellant contention they were mostly processing fabrics of Govt Deptt. Which required DGS&D inspection, therefore these goods were not accounted for in RG-1 register is not acceptable. They have not been able to correlate the seized goods with any of the supply order nor have been able to produce any evidence that these seized goods were inspected by DGS&D offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s confiscation. In view of the above, I uphold the impugned order to the extent of confiscation / redemption of the entire quantity of 9,933.75 Mtrs of processed fabrics and imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Held accordingly." 4. I have heard Ms. Rinki Arora, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri S Nunthuk, learned AR appearing for the Revenue. On going through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), I find that confiscation of the excess found goods has been upheld on the ground that same were neither entered in form IV register or lot register or RG I register. Though the appellants have argued that goods were yet to be entered in RG I register as the same were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
