9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. ORDER Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the ld. Commissioner (A) held that seized goods are not liable for confiscation and set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11(AC) of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 5000/- was confirmed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated. Demand on duty of shortage of inputs and excess of finished goods were confirmed along with interest and penalties were imposed on the respondent. In appeal before ld. Commissioner (A), the demand on account of shortage of raw material was confirmed but penalty was dropped for excess of raw material the demand was dropped and a penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration on 15-5-2010 that they are going to close their factory and on visit it was found running. In these circumstances, the seized finished goods are liable for confiscation and can be redeemed on payment of fine. Penalty on the respondent is also imposable. 4. On the other hand the ld. Counsel of the respondent submits that in this case the only allegation against the respondent is that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed production again but at the time of visit on 6-7-2010 the factory was found running which shows that the respondent was involved in the activity of clandestine manufacture of goods and clearing thereof without payment of duty without accounting them in their books of accounts. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention of the ld. Commissioner (A) that it is the case of mere non accountal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
