9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pper Strips falling under Chapter 74 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 during the relevant period. They were also working under the Modvat Scheme. While so, on 25-6-1997, the Preventive Officers of the Central Excise Department visited the appellant s factory by surprise and conducted physical verification of the stock of the finished goods as well as the raw materials. They found a quantity of 4264.25 Kgs. of Copper Wire bar (raw material) in excess over and above the recorded stock of the raw material. This quantity of the goods was of a value of around Rs. 5 Lakhs, involving Central Excise Duty amounting to around Rs. 76,000/-. The Central Excise Officers scrutinised the statutory records produced by Shri Jitender Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iving an option to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs alongwith Central Excise duty of Rs. 76,756.50. The adjudicating authority further imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on the firm under Rule 173Q and separate penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on the partner (Shri Jitender Agarwal) under Section 209 A of the Central Excise Rules. The firm and the partner preferred seperate appeals against the order of adjudication before the Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeals] who passed a common order in the 2 appeals before him. Hence Appeal No. C/638/99-NB by the firm and Appeal No. E/635/99 NB by the partner, Shri Jitender Agarwal before the Tribunal. 2. I have carefully examined the impugned order as well as the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to be set aside on this sole ground. 5. As regards the appellant in appeal No. 635, there is no finding whatsoever in the impugned order as to why any penalty should be imposed on him. 3. The ld. Advocate, arguing on the point that the seized goods were already duty-paid and hence no longer excisable, has drawn my attention to the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sulekh Ram and Sons v. Union of India - 1978 E.L.T. J525, wherein the High Court held that goods procured from the market should be deemed to be duty-paid. It is the contention of the appellants that they were manufacturing the finished products on their own as well as on job work basis. Therefore, the seized goods could not have been treated as good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not later on, the ld. JDR has referred to the Provisions of Rule 173G (4) (a) and submitted that, under these Provisions, it is necessary that the entries regarding the raw-materials be entered in Form IV Register soon after the receipt of the said goods. I have perused the Provisions cited by the ld. JDR but I have not been able to find the necessary nexus between these provisions and the Form IV Register referred to in this case. 4. The ld. JDR, further submits that the seizure of the goods was made under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the basis of the reasonable belief that the said goods were liable to confiscation under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules. However, no fact constituting such reasonable belief is forthcoming eith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
