TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER NO.71526-71528/2018 - Dated:- 13-7-2018 - SHRI ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Prateek Dawar (Advocate) Shri Ankush Tandon (Advocate) for the Appellant (s) Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi (A.C.) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR : The above-stated three appeals are taken up together for decision since they are arising out of common impugned order-in-appeal dated 28.11.2014. 2. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoval is not correct. There are number of decisions by the Hon‟ble Tribunal holding that seizure of excisable goods lying in the factory premises is not correct and justified. In the present case, the goods in question were lying in the factory and were not in the stage of removal. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of officers to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation and therefore seizure. In fact the goods were not entered in the books 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 v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ple therefore, have no commercial value. There is nothing on record to establish that the goods seized have escaped payment of duty. In the absence of such evidence the seizure of the goods is not justified as the goods are not liable for confiscation. III. Demand of ₹ 9,19,243.00 The demand of ₹ 919243.00 has been calculated as per details shown in Annexure A to the S.C. Notice Dt.20.02.2013 (para 16(iii)). From the perusal of the Annexure it is noticed that demand of differential 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, rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The supply of goods against the amount received is a must for calculating the differential demand of duty. It is relevant to submit here, the premises at Defence Colony are not the manufacturing premises but a studio for display of goods and order booking and goods kept there are only samples of customized items meant for sample therefore, have no commercial value. There is nothing on record to establish that the goods seized have escaped payment of duty. In the absence of such evidence the seizure of the goods 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, Defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. On perusal of parties submission before the adjudicating authority I find that the said show cause notice dated 20.02.2013 is not sustainable in law. The said show cause notice was issued without proper appreciation of the facts and application of provisions of law. Further the computation of differential duty to be demanded was also not on the basis of settled law. Further raw materials were also proposed to be confiscated. The raw materials cannot be confiscated under the provisions of Central Excise law. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals. The appellants shall be entitled for consequential relief as per law. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
