9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tual weighment, there may be some variation between the estimated weight and the recorded weight and, as such, in my view, the confiscation of finished goods and imposition of penalty on this count - neither the seized inputs nor the seized finished goods are liable for confiscation, there is no justification for penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is also not sustainable. There was no excess of stock of inputs finished goods, that the weight of the finished goods as well as inputs has been determined by eye estimation and, as such, there was no weighment, that Tribunals in the case of Hans Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Kanpur [2006 (3) TMI 364 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ] - confiscation of the alleged excess stock of finished g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anaging Director under Rule 26. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals), this order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld vide order-in-appeal No. 275-276/CE/LKO/2012 dated 13/6/12 against which these two appeals have been filed. In respect of appeal filed by Shri Bhupesh Bansal, the stay application is still pending. 1.1 Though in respect of appeal filed by Shri Bhupesh Bansal, the matter is listed only for listed for hearing of stay application, since, the appeal filed by main appellant is also listed for final hearing, after hearing of this matter for sometime, the Bench of the view that the appeal filed by Shri Bhupesh Bansal can also be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 517 (Tri. - Ahmd.), and that in view of this, the impugned order upholding the redemption fine and penalty on the appellant is not sustainable. 4. Shri P.K. Sharma, the learned Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasised that since at the time of the visit of the DGCEI officers to the factory, the appellant had Central Excise registration, they were required to maintain the correct account of the finished goods manufactured by them and also the account of raw material. He also emphasised that the nature of the goods was such that their weight could be determined by counting the packs without actual weighment. He, therefore, pleaded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
