9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed without payment of Central Excise duty by the appellant and also imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of confiscation under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner has also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,20,000/- on the appellants in terms of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act with Shri Sridhar Thirunakara and Shri Srikanth Thirunakara as Directors and are registered under Central Excise in respect of manufacturing premises located at Kodigehalli, Nelamangala and Ramanagara for the manufacture an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The said show-cause notice was adjudicated by the CCT, Bangalore vide impugned order wherein it has been held that investigation conducted by DGCEI had established that the appellant has manufactured and cleared excisable goods viz. 1000 numbers of bags in question valued at Rs. 9,99,000/- without payment of duty of Rs. 1,23,476/- from their Nelamangala Unit and the said goods are liable for confiscation in terms of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and also held that the appellants are liable for penalty under Rule 25. Appellant submitted that upon completion of investigation, a separate show-cause notice dt. 21/09/2017 was issued by the Assistant Director, Directorate- General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGSTI), Bangalo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of any evidence that excisable goods found unaccounted in the registered premises were intended to be removed, the duty demand would be unsustainable. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Maghan Paper Nukks (P) Ltd. [2008(228) ELT 153 (Tri. Del.)] wherein it was held that in the absence of any evidence to show that the attempts were being made to clear without payment of duty, duty on goods lying unaccounted cannot be demanded. He further relied upon the decisions in the case of CCE Vs. Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. [2007(213) ELT 639 (Tri. Ahmd.)] wherein it was held that when it is held by the Commissioner(Appeals) that there was no mala fide on the part of the assessee to remove the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no evidence placed on record that the appellant had intended to clear the same without payment of duty from the premises of Outshiny Kodigehalli. Therefore unaccountal of the goods by the appellant at best is only a technical breach. Further in view of the decision relied upon by the appellant cited supra, the ratio is squarely applicable in the present case and by following the same I am of the considered view that the impugned order holding that the seized goods is liable to be confiscated is bad in law and unsustainable. For the same reasons, the imposition of penalty on the appellants and Outshiny Kodigehalli (appellant No.2) are liable to be set aside and I do the same. Appeals are accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
