9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kgs. of W.W. Yarn was loaded. On demanding the Rickshaw Puller could not produce any duty paying documents and admitted that the said yarn was loaded from the factory premises of the appellant. The authorities took the cycle rickshaw back to the factory premises wherein the officers confronted the partner of the appellant with the rickshaw loaded with W.W. yarn and on questioning admitted having removed intercepted goods without payment of duty and without any documents. In further follow up action indicated finished excisable goods being found excess than the recorded balance in the statutory books. The said goods were seized by the authorities. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for demand of duty, confiscation of the seized fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 (98) E.L.T. 585 (S.C.); (v) Manindra Chandra Dey v. CEGAT - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 192 (Cal.); (vi) Suvarna Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 148 (Tribunal); (vii) Miracle Foil (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 1998 (103) E.L.T. 513 (Tribunal); (viii) K.I. Pavunny v. Asst. Collr. (HQ), C. Ex. Collectorate, Cochin - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.); 4. Learned D.R. on the other hand submits that retraction of the statement of the partner was belated and is an after thought. It is his submission that in this case the intention of the appellants to remove the goods without payment of duty is proved beyond doubt. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides at length and perused the record. I find that in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n had given a statement that the seized goods were removed from appellant s factory without documents, this statement remains unretracted and uncontroverted. Further, I find that the finished goods which were seized from the factory were in completely finished stage and the records indicate that the goods cannot be under process or not complete as contended by the learned Consultant. In view of this I find that the confiscation of the finished goods is proper and in accordance with the law. 6. The case laws relied upon by the appellants Consultant in support would not be of much help inasmuch that, those cases judgment was given on the back drop of the fact in those cases, that no alleged clandestine removal was proved. Further, I find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
