9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L. Meena, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - These two appeals are directed against the same order. They were heard together and are disposed of under this common order. Appeal No. E/2762/04-NB-SM (M/s. Translam Ltd.) 2. The appellant is a dealer registered with central excise for the purpose of issuing modvat invoices. The subject of this appeal is the confiscation of eight coils of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. The goods had also been despatched by two tempos and that the tempos were at gate of the M/s. Dinesh Industries when they were intercepted by the central excise officers. Subsequent verification of record of the appellant and verification with the proprietor M/s. Dinesh Industries had also confirmed the sale of the copper coils to M/s. Dinesh Industries. The appellant had also issued 4 invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Foods v. CCE, U.P. [2005 (190) E.L.T. 433] in support of this contention. Reliance is on para 5 of the judgement which may be read :- "The Revenue has preferred an appeal from the order of the Tribunal setting aside the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal has set aside the order of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as the sale to M/s. Dinesh Industries is not supported by any evidence. 6. The entire evidence on record support the appellant's explanation regarding sale of duty paid goods to M/s. Dinesh Industries. The goods in question find entry in the statutory record of the appellant and were received from the manufacturer, namely, Birla Copper. Evidence of proprietor of M/s. Dinesh Industries as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was unaccounted stock in the appellant's factory. In the reply to the show cause notice, the appellant has explained that the goods in stock are under different categories and according to the explanation, the difference is only 20 kgs. Clearly, there is no allegation of any evasion of duty. A minor variation in the stock is natural in commodities, which are accounted by way of weight. There i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
