9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock account of finished goods manufactured by him on daily basis in the RG-1 register. In view of this, the stock of copper ingots not accounted for in the RG-1 register has been correctly confiscated under Rule 25 (1) (a) of the Central Excise Rules and penalty has been correctly imposed on them under this Rule - Penalty reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. 55726 of 2013 (SM) - Final Order No. 58104/2013 - Dated:- 18-10-2013 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Shri Naveen Mullick, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Davinder Singh, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) JUDGEMENT Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The fact leading to this appeal and stay applications are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20th July, 2010 remanded the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority for denovo adjudication after granting opportunity of personal hearing. In denovo proceedings the Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 02/09/11 again ordered confiscation of the unaccounted stock of copper ingots and with option to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 1,20,000/- and beside this, imposed penalty of Rs. 1,96,379/- on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules readwith Section 11AC. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 25/10/12 upheld the Assistant Commissioners order against which this appeal has been fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasised that the unit had been visited by the Central Excise officers only for the reason that for the last 3 to 4 years it was filing nil returns, that the fact that on 03/6/06, the RG-1 register was written upto 30th April 2006, while there was stock of 3961 kgs. of copper ingots, itself shows that the appellant was deliberately not accounting for the production of finished goods in the RG-1 register, that there was no record of purchase of the raw material, that looked in this background, the non-accountal of the finished goods in the RG-1 register would imply that this was done with intent to evade the payment of duty and that in the facts and circumstances of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
