TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... While the goods and semi-finished products of the appellant may not have been so recorded, in the absence of any allegation that such non-accountal was with intent to remove goods clandestinely, there is no scope for confiscation and imposition of penalty under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Confiscation, redemption fine as well as penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL NO: E/85943/2013 - A/86278/2018 - Dated:- 1-5-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri RD Waglay with Ms Anagha Gavade, Advocates for appellant Shri N N Prabhudesai, Superintendent (AR) for respondent M/s Paratex (India) challenges the fine of `1,00,000 for redemption of confiscated goods and impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Act, 1944. These raw materials are not manufactured by the appellants. I fail to understand as to how their nonentry in the statutory records made the appellant liable to pay duty of excise in respect of the same. Even the confiscation of the same under the provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not warranted inasmuch as the said provisions provides for the finished goods and not the raw material as held by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. Cus., Surat v. Dincotex Private Ltd. - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 326 (Tri.). I find no justification for confiscation of grey fabrics or demand of duty in respect of the same from the appellants. In view of the above, I set aside the confiscation of the finished product a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the manufacture of the final product, the same is to be entered in RG-1 register after undergoing the testing. As such, I do not find any justification for confiscation of the finished goods or to demand duty in respect of the same, in as much as the same were still in the factory premises and would discharge the burden of duty at the time of their clearance, after being entered in RG-1 register. 7. Similarly in respect of the raw material which were not found entered in the records, I am of the view that there is no provision under Central Excise Law for confiscation of the raw material. Only penalty for non-maintenance of record can be imposed upon the appellant. In view of the explanation of the appellant that the said raw mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods had been clandestinely removed. The sole issue in question is whether goods that admittedly, are not finished products were required to be recorded in the registers that are statutorily prescribed. This has been appropriately decided upon by the Tribunal as observed supra. The instructions of the Central Board of Excise Customs are intended to ensure that the accounts should be of sufficient scope as to monitor, to deter and to enforce recovery in the event of any illicit clearance. While the goods and semi-finished products of the appellant may not have been so recorded, in the absence of any allegation that such non-accountal was with intent to remove goods clandestinely, there is no scope for confiscation and imposition of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
