9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Heard the parties and perused the records. On perusal of records I find that the appellants have made following submissions before the original authority:- "I. Regarding Confiscation of Finished Goods and Raw-materials: In para 16 of the S C Notice we are called upon to show cause to your honour as to why the finished goods and raw-materials should not be confiscated in terms of rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. We submit the following: The stock taking of finished goods as well as cenvatable raw-materials was done by the officers of Central Excise as per Annexures- A&B to Panchnama dt. 21/22.08.2012. The goods were seized on the ground that the same were not entered in the statutory record i.e. RG-1 and RG23A part I & II. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oks of A/c and it was explained to the officer that the dealing head was not attending his duty; therefore, the goods could not be accounted in the relevant record. It is a case of non-maintenance of account but not a case of mal-intention to remove the goods clandestinely. In view of these facts the goods seized were not liable for confiscation. Therefore, seizure of the finished goods was not justified and legal. Similarly, seizure of raw-materials as shown in Annexure -B to Panchnama dt.21.08.2012, is not reasonable and correct. The raw material is not liable for confiscation as no amount of duty alleged to be involved is shown in the Show Notice. The confiscated raw materials was taken on random basis and no opportunity was given to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferential duty is calculated on the basis of amount collected from different buyers. There is no mention of any commodity/articles supplied to the buyers from whom the amount was collected. The calculation of demand is not proper, reasonable and correct. Duty of excise is levied on the goods manufactured and cleared. In the absence of quantity of goods manufactured, the calculation of demanded duty on the basis of amount received is not justified and legal. Moreover, when demand of duty is made after removal of the goods the total amount received from buyers is to be taken as price-cum-duty of the excisable goods as clarified in explanation under Section 4(1) of the C.E. Act, 1944. No such exercise appears to have been made while ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods is not justified as the goods are not liable for confiscation. In view of the facts and legal provisions demand of duty made in S.C. Notice is not justified and legal. Demand of duty on printed products, D-23, Defence Colony, New Delhi: The demand of duty on goods found at D-23, Defence Colony, New Delhi is not correct. The goods were in the nature of samples for showing the customers. There is no evidence on records when the goods were cleared from the factory. Therefore, demand of duty is not justified. IV. Demand for Interest: As stated above the demand of duty is not justified and legal, therefore, demand of interest on the amount of duty demanded is also not proper and justified. V. Regarding Imposition of Penalty: A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
