9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial which stands confiscated by the authorities below was being stored in an adjoining godown of the appellants. Admittedly, the same has not reached the factory premises and the appellants had not availed the credit in respect of the same. The lower authorities by referring to the provisions of Rule 25, have imposed penalty upon the appellants under Rule 26. On going through Rule 25, I find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to dispose of the appeals itself, inasmuch as a short issue is involved. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes. Their factory premises was visited by the officers on 16-1-2009, who conducted various checks and verification. No discrepancy was found either in the stock of final products or in the stock of raw materials. However, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sudhir Tobacco Co. and Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on Shri V.P. Singh, General Manager in terms of Rule 26 ibid. 4. On appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Admittedly there was no shortage or excess of raw materials in the factory of the appellants at the time of visit of the officers. The raw materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the basis of presumption and assumption, the adjudicating authority and appellate authority passed the order. The lower authorities have not referred to any provision of law requiring the assessee to account for the raw materials which might have been purchased by him and stored outside the factory premises of the appellants. I do not find any justifiable reason to either confiscate the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
