9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant : Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. G.R. Singh, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : The brief facts of the case are that on 13.05.2013 a search was conducted in the factory premises of the appellant wherein on physical verification the raw material copper ingots was found in excess of 1621 Kg and finished goods copper wire rod was found in excess of 84 Kg. On the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that with regard to the excess raw material found in the factory, the same are not liable for confiscation in terms of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. On the other hand ld. AR oppose the contention of ld. Counsel and submits the appellant themselves have admitted the excess of 84 kg of finished goods. In that circumstances, the finished goods are liable for confiscatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and worksheet has not been provided to the appellant. In that circumstance, being a negligible quantity of excess found goods cannot be held liable for confiscation. I further observed that during the course of investigation, the director himself has disputed the method weighment and explain that difference of excess finished goods is due to incorrect weighment of finished goods but no exercise w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raw material. 9. In that circumstances, I hold that the raw material found excess cannot be confiscated. Therefore, the issue no. 2 is also answered in favour of the appellant. 10. In view of the above analysis, I hold that goods in question are not liable for confiscation. Therefore, redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant are set aside. 11. In result, the appeals are allowed wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
