9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [Order]. This an appeal directed against the Order-in-Appeal dt. 24-12-2003 wherein confiscation of the goods not accounted was upheld and imposition of penalty was also upheld. 2. The relevant facts for consideration arise are that the Central Excise officers conducted a physical stock verification of the raw materials and the finished goods in the factory of the appellant and foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne by the authorities. He submits that there is no allegation in the SCN in respect of intendment of the appellants to remove the goods clandestinely. In the absence of any such allegation, the confiscation and the imposition of penalty is wrong. He relies on the case-law of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (Tri.). He also relies upon the case-law of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.30 hrs and found the stock in excess. The appellant s plea before the adjudicating authority that the goods which were found excess were a day s production, was not dealt by the adjudicating authority in detail but were brushed aside with a single sentence stating that it was an after thought. It may be possible that the goods which were lying in excess would be a day s production. If that be so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attract this clause - Rule 173Q(1)(b) of Central Excise Rules to be read in conjunction and not in isolation with other provisions of Rule 173Q . 7. In view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances. I find that the confiscation of the goods and option for redemption fine is not correct and is liable to be set aside. 8. But at the same time, the appellants have not made any entries in the RG1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
