TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be cleared on payment of duty, there is no justification for confiscation of the same or for imposition of penalty upon the appellant - appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. E/51901-51902/2017 EX-DB] - FINAL ORDER NOs. 53261-53262/2018 - Dated:- 31-10-2018 - MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant: Shri. S.C. Kamra, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri. S.K. Bansal, D.R. ORDER PER: ARCHANA WADHWA As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various types of paper tissues, paper hand towels, paper face tissues etc. by cutting and slitting jumbo rolls of paper and were not registered with the Central Excise Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturing unit. Further penalty of ₹ 20,000/- was imposed on Shri. Naveen Rastogi, Director of the Unit. The said order was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. 4. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly agrees that based upon the above development, another proceedings were also initiated against them proposing confirmation of demand for the past period, by invoking the extended period of limitation. The said proceedings reached the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order reported in 2018 TIOL 2486 CESTAT Delhi, held that the activities undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture. The said view was undertaken on the basis of subsequent decision of S.C. in the case of Servo M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue as to whether in the above facts and circumstances of the case, Revenue was justified in confiscating the goods and imposing the penalties upon both the appellants is required to be examined. Admittedly, during the relevant period, there was Supreme Court decision which held that cutting, slitting activities of jumbo rolls into smaller pieces does not amount to manufacture. The subsequent decision, which stands relied upon by the Tribunal in the assessees own case was passed on in 2015, whereas the seizure relates to July, 2014. As such, while upholding that the seized and confiscated goods are required to be cleared on payment of duty, we find no justification for confiscation of the same or for imposition of penalty upon the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
