9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration are that the appellants' factory was visited by the officers of the Central Excise department on 9-9-2002 and they found the stock of finished goods as well as HDPE granules i.e. inputs in excess of the recorded balance in their statutory records. The officers seized the excess goods and a show cause notice was issued asking them to show as to why these goods should not be confiscated and penalty be not imposed on them. The appellants contested the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority in his order-in-original dated 29-8-2003 confiscated the excess goods found with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed a penalty on the appellants. On appeal, the appellate authority upheld the order-in-or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty. He further submits that the provisions of Rule 25 have been enacted to consider these kind of violation by the appellants and the goods have been correctly confiscated. He also submits that once the goods which are produced and ready in all respect, if not accounted in the statutory record, inference is nothing but an intention to remove the goods without payment of duty. He relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Media Video Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2003 (160) E.L.T. 609 (T). 5. Considered the submissions of both sides, perused the record. I find that the order-in-original as well as order-in-appeal has been passed for confiscation of the goods of the finished goods found in excess and in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideo Ltd. regarding non-accountal of the goods, relied upon by the learned SDR, I observe, that, in that case the appellants therein was having precedence of removal of goods clandestinely without payment of duty and this was corroborated in that case. This particular fact had made the Tribunal to take a different view than the Bhilai Conductor's case, (supra). 6. In respect of raw material found in the appellants' factory there is no allegation in the show cause notice that these goods were, in fact, produced or manufactured by the appellants. The goods which were found were granules which are used as inputs by the appellants for manufacturing planks, drums in their factory. Since these are inputs the question of their confiscation does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
