2007 (11) TMI 524 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation - Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are applicable to the final product and cannot be extended to the raw material - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Confiscability of raw material procured against cash

Confiscability of Raw Material:
The issue in the appeal was the confiscability of raw material procured by the appellant from the market against cash. The appellate authority ruled that Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies to the final product and not to raw materials. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that Rule 25 pertains to confiscation of goods manufactured by the assessee and not to raw materials. Citing precedent cases, it was emphasized that Rule 25 does not extend to inputs but only to finished goods. The order for confiscation and imposition of redemption fine was set aside, with the appellants not being liable for Central Excise duty as they were not the manufacturers of the subjected goods.

Analysis:
The judgment upheld the view of the appellate authority, citing the Tribunal's precedent decisions and concurred with the interpretation that Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not cover confiscation of raw materials. The ruling reiterated that the rule applies to contraventions related to finished goods and not to inputs. The decision emphasized the distinction between raw materials and final products in the context of confiscation under Rule 25, aligning with previous Tribunal decisions and legal interpretations. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was found to lack merit, leading to its rejection along with the disposal of the cross-objection.

Conclusion:
The judgment clarified the scope of Rule 25 regarding confiscation, emphasizing its applicability to manufactured goods rather than raw materials. By referencing established legal principles and precedents, the ruling affirmed that the rule does not encompass confiscation of inputs like raw materials. The decision provided a clear interpretation of the law, ultimately resulting in the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and the disposal of the cross-objection in line with the appellate authority's findings.