9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stock verification was done in the presence of Director of the appellant company and two independent witnesses. Shri Ajay Goel, director of the appellant company admitted excess quantity available and could not explain reason for the same. Subsequently, it was claimed to be due to mis-reporting by the production staff. In pursuance of the show cause notice dated 1.3.08, the original authority ordered confiscation of the excess found raw materials and allowed redemption on payment of Rs.2,04,371/-. He also imposed penalty of Rs.2,04,371/- on them. 4.1 Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that they are manufacturers of M.S.Ingots. The stock taking did not reveal any variation of stock in respect of final products. Sponge iron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty should be set aside. In case it is held that the goods are liable for confiscation and penalty is imposable, a lenient view should be taken as there is no intention to evade any payment of duty. 5. Learned SDR strongly supports the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The raw material which was found in excess is undisputedly excisable goods. The appellants have not produced any evidence for licit procurement. Under these circumstances, the conclusion that they are non duty paid is reasonable, and therefore, in terms of Rule 25 (1) (b) of Central Excise Rules,2002, the goods are liable for confiscation and penalty is also imposable. Even otherwise, the appellants having procured excisable goods without invoice are liable for pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have no documents proving licit procurement. The decision of Hon'ble Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CCE vs. Annapurna Impex Pvt.Ltd reported in 2009 (244) ELT 35 is on the facts of the said case. In the said case, it was held that no credit was availed on raw material and goods were held to be non excisable items. Once, no duty is paid, there is no question of availing any cenvat credit on such raw material. The facts of other cases relied upon by the appellants are also clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 6.3 Undisputedly, the appellants have acquired possession of the excisable goods, namely, sponge iron which was manufactured by some unknown manufacturers. If anybody was in a posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
