Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2000 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2000 (7) TMI 346 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Confiscation of finished goods and raw-materials by Central Excise officers.
2. Appeal against the order of adjudication.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and duty demand.
4. Appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Interpretation of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
6. Justification for non-accountal of raw-materials.
7. Penalty imposed on the appellants.

Analysis:

1. The Central Excise officers found finished goods in excess and unaccounted raw-materials in the appellants' factory, leading to the confiscation of both items. The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of finished goods and raw-materials with an option to redeem on payment of a fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the duty demand on finished goods but upheld the confiscation of raw-materials due to non-accountal, along with a reduced redemption fine and penalty. The appeal before the Tribunal challenges this order.

2. The main ground of appeal is that the raw-materials were duty-paid and not excisable, thus Rule 173Q was wrongly invoked. The advocate argued that the penalty provisions can only apply to excisable goods. The Department alleged non-accountal of raw-materials under Rule 173Q, which the party failed to contest. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of raw-materials, finding no justification for non-accountal, and reduced the redemption fine.

3. The penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was related to the duty demand on finished goods, not the confiscation of raw-materials. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty without considering this distinction. As the penalty was not connected to the raw-materials, the Tribunal set it aside. The appeal was allowed on this ground, reducing the penalty imposed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect of the case, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and outcomes.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates