9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntering into the statutory record. This in my opinion may be correct, given the fact that the quantity of finished goods were not that very high. The show cause notice issued to the appellants in the present case that there is no allegation to remove the goods from the factory without payment of duty. In the absence of any such allegation in the show cause notice it cannot be considered or presume that the appellants had intention to remove the goods without payment of duty. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eized 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-original without any relief to the appellants. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the confiscation of the goods is wrong. He submits that the excess goods which were found in the factory premises were still under process and the same w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 respect of raw material found in excess in the factory premises of the appellants. In respect of the finished goods I find that the appellants have been continuously taking a plea before the lower authorities that these goods were not yet completely finished and goods still hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade 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 not arise as held in the case of CCE, Indore v. Avanti LPG India Ltd. (supra). In the said case the Tribunal has held as under :- Raw material for manufacture of LPG found in excess - Confiscation ordered under Rule 209(1)(b) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Respondents ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
