9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000/-, by following the Tribunal s decision in Bhilai Conductors P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of processed cotton fabrics, etc. On 25-2-98, the officers of the Central Excise visited their factory premises at Gurgaon and carried out physical verification of the stock. The officers found that textile measuring 6202 mtrs. Involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 74,082/- was not recorded in the RG-1 register. This textile related to the packing list prepared on the dates from 22-2-98 to 24-2-98. The excess textile was seized in the presence of Anil Kumar Jain and two independent witnesses under a panchnama prepared at the spot. The statement of Raj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs. 2000/- under Rule 226 by observing that Rule 173Q could not be invoked as there was no intention on the part of the respondents to remove the goods without payment of duty. 3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shows that the main plea taken by the respondents before him was that the seized goods were not in a fully finished condition and were lying in the packing area pending approval by the buyers, where as the explanation offered by Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, authorised signatory of the respondents on the date of the seizure of the goods was that out of the seized goods, 3228 mtrs. of fabrics was production of the previous day which as per the practice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approved by the buyers under any provision of law. Therefore, from the material on record including the statements of the authorised signatory and the partner of the respondents company referred to above, in my view, it stands proved that there was non-accountal of the goods. 4. Since the goods were not accounted for in the relevant statutory record by the respondents, the same were rightly ordered to be confiscated under Rule 173Q by the adjudicating authority. The ratio of law laid down in Bhilai Conductors P. Ltd. relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside the confiscation of the goods, is not attracted to the present case, keeping in view the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Kirloskar Brothers v. Union of India - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
