TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered dealer but merely user of raw material, which cannot be called excisable goods in terms of definition contained in Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 – confiscation of inputs not allowed – confiscation for non accounting of finished goods upheld – redemption fine and penalty reduced. - E/3209-3211/2006-SM(BR) - 1168-1170/2008-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 15-7-2008 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri V.R. Sethi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Rastogi, DR, for the Respondent. [Order].- All these appeals are arising out of a common order and, therefore, all are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Bars, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2005 (192) E.L.T. 666 (Tribunal-Mumbai). He further submits that the Appellants subsequently produced the records and there was no excess materials and, therefore, confiscation of the seized goods is not sustainable. He also submits that the charges are non-maintenance of record properly in contravention of Rule 10(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and, therefore, imposition of redemption fine and penalty are excessive. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Appellants failed to produce the records at the time of visit of central excise officers. He further submits that the Appellants manipulated the records and imposition of penalty and redemption fine are justified. 5. Afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944. In view of the decisions of Tribunal, I find that confiscation of the raw materials is not justified, but penalty is imposable. 6. Regarding confiscation of the finished goods, it is admitted position that the Appellant did not maintain the daily stock accounts properly and, therefore, finished goods are liable to be confiscated. The Tribunal in the case of PNP Castings (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Lucknow - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 250 (T-D) held that excisable goods were not accounted for in the statutory records in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules liable to confiscation. In the present case, I find that the Appellants failed to give any proper reasons for excess of the finished goods and the confiscation is justified. However, I agree with the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
