TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en provided to the appellant. In that circumstance, being a negligible quantity of excess found goods cannot be held liable for confiscation. Revenue sought to confiscate the raw material found excess in the factory premises of the appellant. As per Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the excisable goods are liable for confiscation. Excisable goods are the goods which are manufactured by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e factory the show cause was issued to confiscate the excess goods found and to impose redemption fine and penalty on the appellant. The adjudication took place goods found in excess were held liable for confiscation. Consequently, redemption fine penalty has been imposed on the appellant. 2. Aggrieved from the said order the appellant is before me. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n rightly confiscated. He further submitted that the raw material is excisable goods and same has not been recorded in the statutory records. In that circumstances, the raw material is liable for confiscation as per Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. Heard the parties and consider submissions. 6. On going through the arguments advanced by both the sides the following issue emerges: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department for correct weighment of the said goods. In that circumstance, goods cannot be held liable for confiscation. Therefore, I hold that finished goods are not liable for confiscation. In these terms issue no. 1 is answered in favour of the appellant. 8. Issue No.2: Revenue sought to confiscate the raw material found excess in the factory premises of the appellant. As per Rule 25 of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
