TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropriated - From the pleadings and on perusal of record, it is noted that the said duty was paid by the appellant during the normal course of business and the goods were also reflected in their ER-1 return. The said return was also filed before the issuance of said show cause notice - Once the goods are reflected in ER-1 return and duty liability on the same has been accepted then even if the duty is not paid on the due date the recourse available with revenue is to resort to provision of Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and recover duty with interest and such goods do not become contravening goods and there is no provision in Central Excise Law to confiscate the goods which are not contravening goods - the impugned order in so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not due on the same.The authorities under Central Excise Act do not have power to seize and confiscate the raw material. Therefore, confiscation of raw material belonging to M/s Vasudev Udyog is also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal Nos.71179, 71195 & 71196 of 2018-[SM] - FINAL ORDER NOS-71977-71979/2019 - Dated:- 9-12-2019 - HON BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms Stuti Saggi, Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwal, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER: ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR The above stated three appeals are taken together for deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same on payment of redemption fine was ordered and in respect of goods which were still within the factory, in case of M/s Shivam Metal and Vasudev Udyog, duty was demanded and in case of goods which were cleared by M/s Mayank Metal there was proposal to appropriate the duty already paid and said proposal of show cause notice was confirmed through the impugned Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by the said order, above stated appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, I note that in case of M/s Mayank Meatal it was proposed in para 32.1 of the said show cause notice that the goods which were removed from the factory and wereen-route to M/s Sandeep Manufacturing Strips were propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not been removed from the factory without payment of duty they do not become contravening goods and the same are not liable for confiscation. The Original Adjudicating Authority should have directed the appellant to record the excess found finished goods in RG-1 register so that they suffer duty on their clearance. I note that the goods were in the present case still within the factory and therefore, they were not liable for confiscation. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order in respect of goods belonging to M/s Shivam Udyog and Vasudev Udyog with directions to the respective appellants to record the said goods in their RG-1 register if already recorded in RG-1 register cleared as payment of appropriate Central Excise duty the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
