9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation. The appellant during the seizure of the goods could have represented for re-checking of the stock, which was not opted by the appellant. - excess stock was lying admittedly in the factory and was not cleared from the factory, therefore confirmation of demand and consequential penalty under Section 11AC is not correct. However the goods are very much liable for excise duty. If the same have already been cleared, the said duty shall stand adjusted towards the duty liability of the said goods and if the goods are still lying in the factory as and when the goods is cleared this duty shall be treated as payment of duty on the clearance of the said goods. As regard the penalty, I observed that excise duty at the time of seizure of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gots. The appellant on the said excess stock paid excise duty of ₹ 1,79,194/- thereafter a show cause notice was issued which is culminated into Order-in-Original dated 28/9/2007, wherein following order was passed: Order 1. I confiscate 61 M.T. of M.S. Ingots valued at ₹ 10,98,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. I allow these goods to be redeemed on payment of an amount of ₹ 3,30,000/- . 2. I confirm the demand of ₹ 1,79,194/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. I appropriate the amount of ₹ 1,79,194/- paid by the assessee vide TR 6 Challan No. 14/05-06 dated 05.04.05 against the above demand. 4. I impose a penalty of ₹ 1,79,194/- on M/s. Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant was present who signed the panchanama. As regard excess stock of 61 MT of M.S Ingots the appellant has not raised any objection on spot. He further submits that director of the appellant company in his statement recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act accepted the excess stock, therefore confiscation of the goods was correctly upheld by the lower appellate authority. On query from the bench that confirmation of excise duty and consequent penalty should not have been made as goods were not cleared from the factory. He submits that since goods were found in excess and same was excisable goods and the said duty was paid by the appellant, the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner(Appeals) has correctly confirmed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bal explanation. The appellant during the seizure of the goods could have represented for re-checking of the stock, which was not opted by the appellant. In view of this position, I am of the view that excess stock of 61 MT of M.S. Ingots valued of ₹ 10,98,000/- could not be disputed. In the impugned order the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has confirmed demand of duty amounting to ₹ 1,79,194/- which was already paid by the appellant and penalty of equal amount was also imposed. In this regard, I am of the view that first of all the appellant was not required to pay duty on such excess stock consequently Ld Adjudicating authority should not have confirmed the demand of such duty for the reason that excise duty is payable only at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
