9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants factory and carried out physical verification of the stock. As a result, a shortage of 2.490 Kms. of core wires valued at Rs. 1,244,500/- as compared to stocks already entered in RG 1 was detected. The stock verification also revealed that wires and cables of different sizes measuring 43.450 Kms. valued at Rs. 7,62,898/- which were in excess of the recorded balance had not been accounted for in RG 1. Since the goods had not been accounted for, they were seized. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 31,125/- on wires valued at Rs. 1,24,500/- found short as compared to the book balance. The show cause notice also proposed confiscation of excess goods valued at Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve imposed redemption fine relatable to the market value of the goods. He, therefore, prays that the order of the Collector should be set aside to the extent that redemption fine and personal penalty should have been imposed relatable to the duty sought to be evaded. 4. We have heard both sides. It is seen that it was admitted that the goods were fully finished excisable goods lying in the factory premises. There is no evidence placed on record that these were awaiting testing. It was argued by the learned Advocate that all the wires and cables meant for BHEL are invariably tested. There is however no evidence before us whether the goods awaited test or had already been tested. The fact remains that these goods were not accounted. There i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val. No plea for confiscation under Clause (b) of Rule 173Q(1) was taken before the Hon ble High Court in that case. 6. The Department has not led any evidence to prove that there was intention to remove the goods without payment of duty and, the penalty, therefore, would be imposable. Apart from this, it cannot be sustained as imposition of penalty was not even proposed in the show cause notice. 7. Learned Advocate raised the question of eligibility of the appellants to SSI exemption in terms of Notification No. 175/86. This was not raised by him before the original adjudicating authority. Since, however, this is a question of law, we are of the view that the claim has to be examined by the original adjudicating authority in the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
