9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducting physical stock taking, certain finished goods were found lying in stock which is in excess to the stock recorded in RG-1 register. Accordingly, excess stock valued at Rs. 26,04,083/- was put under seizure, Panchanama was drawn and statements of Shri Santosh Shrivastav, Production Manager and Shri Rajiv Thadani, Director of the appellant Company were recorded. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued wherein the demand of Rs. 3,21,865/- was proposed on the excess found goods and it was also proposed to confiscate the seized goods and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was also proposed to be imposed. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 3,21,865/-, ordered for confiscation of go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n record by the Revenue to establish that non-accounting of goods was with intention to clear the goods to evade payment of duty. Therefore, in absence of any such attempt, the goods cannot be confiscated. He further submitted that since the goods were lying in the factory and the same was accounted subsequently in the RG-1 register, there was no reason to demand duty. Therefore, equal amount of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not imposable. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) CCE vs. Resham Petrotech Limited - 2010 (258) ELT 60 (Guj.) (b) S.B. Industries vs. CCE, Patna - 2007 (213) ELT 79 (Tri. Kolkata) (c) CCE, Daman vs. Mukesh Metal Industries Pvt. Limited - 2009 (247) ELT 810 (Tri. Ahmd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatements recorded under Section 14, stated that non-accountal of excess found goods is due to technical snag in the computer software and for this reason, production record could not be generated for the period 01 January 2014 to 06 January 2014 and because of this reason, RG-1 register could not be updated. Admittedly, there is no investigation by the Revenue on these categorical statements given by the appellant's employees and no evidence has been brought on record that non-accounting of finished goods is with intention to clear the goods clandestinely for evasion of duty. Therefore, as the goods were not liable for confiscation, the ratio of judgments cited by the appellant is applicable to the present case as the facts are more or les ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
