TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no dispute about the fact that the goods in question i.e. 1000 numbers of bags were found lying in the assessee s own premises and there 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. The impugned order holding that the seized goods is liable to be confiscated is bad in law and unsustainable - the imposition of penalty on the appellants and Outshiny Kodigehalli (appellant No.2) are liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20759/2019-SM, E/20760/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20994-20995/2019 - Dated:- 5-11-2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Bangalore (now Directorate General of Goods Service Tax Intelligence or DGGI) indicated that the different units of the appellant had manufactured and cleared excisable goods without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. They have searched various premises of the appellant during November 2015 and also recorded statements of the Directors under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and documents/records deemed incriminating in nature were recovered under the cover of Mahazars. Further the search conducted by DGGI revealed that excisable goods i.e. 1000 number of bags in question valued at ₹ 9,90,000/- involving duty of ₹ 1,23,476/- were lying in the premises of Outshiny Kodigehalli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/- and the same were seized on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce documentary evidence to prove that Central Excise duty had been paid on them. The show-cause notice was adjudicated by Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dt. 16/01/2019 wherein it has been held that investigation conducted by DGGI against Outshiny India Apparels Pvt. Ltd. had showed that the appellants had manufactured 1000 numbers of bags in question valued at ₹ 9,99,000/- but had not accounted the same in the statutory records with intent to clear the same without payment of duty. The original authority has also upheld other demands alleged against the appellant. aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016(333) ELT 165 (Tri. Del.)] wherein it was held that confiscation and penalty are not sustainable in the absence of allegation of non-payment of duty or clandestine clearance of goods. 3. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 4. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that for the impugned goods, another show-cause notice was issued to the appellant which was finally decided by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide his order dt. 14/06/2019 wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) has held that the demand in respect of the goods seized on the premises of Outshiny Kodigehalli was not sustainable since there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
