9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sugar packed in 27242 bags from manufacturers of sugar in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh and stored the same in Godown No. OT-3 which was situated outside the manufacturing premises of respondent. The respondent was having permission to store non-duty paid sugar manufactured by them in the said Godown. When the officers of Central Excise Department visited the said godown on 21.10.2008 it appeared to Revenue that procurement of sugar by respondent from outside and storing in non-duty paid godown without recording its receipt in any statutory record was with intention to replenish and storage in stock, therefore, the said quantity of sugar valued at Rs. 4,93,92,473/- was seized on 31.10.2008. The respondent were issued with a show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of non-duty paid goods and the said goods were not entered in any record either in the godown or in the factory and that Revenue has not disputed the duty paid nature of the goods and, therefore, the confiscation of the goods was not warranted. He has further held that the demand of duty was also not sustainable and imposition of penalty and redemption fine were also not sustainable. he has further held that penalty imposed on Shri Atul Sharma was not warranted. Aggrieved by the said order Revenue preferred present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are as follows:- (i) That from the facts of the case, it is evident that the party stored procured sugar unaccounted in their outside godown as allege ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals), Meerut-II has considered only the aspect of duty paid nature of goods while deciding party s appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut-II consideration to the effect that The demand of duty is also not sustainable as the Department has not disputed the duty paid nature of the good s is totally erroneous, as nowhere in show cause notice under consideration, demand of any duty was ever made. (viii) That the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut-II failed to consider the basic allegation mentioned in show cause notice dated 02.04.2009 to the effect of illegal and unaccounted storage of goods and replenishment of the same with clandestinely removed goods as confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide his Order-in-Original No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not account for any excisable goods stored by him, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or a registered dealer, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods. (xi) That the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut-II failed to consider that as per the aforesaid provisions, the adjudicating authority rightly confiscated the unaccounted goods stored in non duty paid godown. (xii) That the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut-II ignored the intended storage of goods and erred in holding that the issue to be decided by him was whether the confiscation of the duty paid goods is warranted or not. (xiii) From the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
