2006 (3) TMI 576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 2-1-2004 which upholds the order-in-original, dated 29-10-2001, wherein the seized goods were confiscated and penalty imposed on the appellants. 2. The issue involved in this case is that the appellant is registered dealer and was dealing in excisable goods and was issuing Cenvatable dealers invoices on a follow up action in respect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... being accounted in RG 23D Register. It is not disputed that the appellant is a dealer in the goods and not a manufacturer. As a dealer of goods, it may be possible that the appellant may have purchased the confiscated goods for resale. It is not mandatory that the Central Excise Registered Dealer should only deal in duty paid goods. To my mind non-accounting of the goods in the RG 23D cannot be t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are the same for which earlier demand was confirmed due to shortage is without any basis. In view of the foregoing, I find that the impugned order is correctly passed and the same is upheld. Appeal filed by the appellant is rejected. It seems that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the submissions of the appellant in totality. In the interest of justice, the appellants submi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X