2006 (6) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 28-5-2004 that upheld the Order-in-Original by which confiscation of excess goods was ordered and penalty imposed. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the officers visited the factory of the appellant and took stock of molasses in tank No. 2. When the stock was taken on 22-10-2002 by dip readi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nefit to the appellant up to 15% as tenable and reduced the redemption fine and penalty. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that on 22-10-2001 when stock was verified by dip method they did not accept this stock due to inherent foaming nature of the goods. It is his submission that molasses tend to foam due to various reasons like changing temperature, dec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng of molasses takes place due to change in temperature and its inherent nature, and chose not to accept the excess quantity as noticed and did not enter the excess quantity in statutory records. It is seen from records that same opening stock of 26,908.20 quintal in tank No 2 was recorded in tank register; RG-I State Excise records on pp: dale of visit of the officers, On complete emptying of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X