2004 (2) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntral Excise Rules, 2001 on the findings that the said 18 pieces of rolls were not entered by the appellant in their RG-1 register. 2. As per the facts on record the appellants factory was visited by the Central Excise (Prev.) officers on 25-2-2002 who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result of physical verification of the stock it was found that 18 pieces of metal rolling mill rolls were packed in wooden cases but no entry was made in the RG-1 records. On the belief that the goods were fully finished and was not accounted, the same were seized by the officers. Statement of Shri R.K. Bose, Asstt. Manager of the appellant company was recorded on 25-2-2002 wherein he disclosed that the non-accountal of 18 pieces of metal ro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ey also submitted operation chart to show that certain minor operations were subsequently carried out to the 18 rolls which were released to them provisionally and goods were entered in their RG-1 records and duly exported on 5-9-2002. Necessary documents in the shape of packing list, bill of lading and shipping bill and the other proof of export of the seized 18 rolls were also submitted. In view of their submission the appellant prayed for dropping of the proceedings against them inasmuch as there was no mala fide on their part. 4. The Commissioner did not accept the above contention of the appellant and passed the impugned order. Hence the present appeal. 5. I have heard Shri K.K. Banerjee, ld. Adv. for the appellant and Shri N.K. Mi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . I find that the above reasoning of the Commissioner is based upon the assumptions and presumptions. There is no categorical denial by the Revenue that the rolls in question are not manufactured according to the specification of their Saudi Arabian customer. The appellants have also shown that after the goods were provisionally released to them they carried out certain operations as per notings made in the operation chart and the goods have ultimately been exported on 5-9-2000. The above contention has been discarded by the Commissioner that operation chart was not maintained in routine manner and the appellant might have prepared the same as an afterthought. However, he does not deny the fact that such operations were actually carried out .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X