9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) held that inputs found excess in the factory of production are liable for confiscation and imposed a redemption fine of Its. 60,000/-. 3. The contention of the appellant is that they were not working under the Modvat Scheme and no credit was availed in respect of inputs which were found in the factory. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les. The provisions of Rule 209 provides that if any manufacturer, producer or registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer does not account for any excisable goods manufactured, produced or stored by him such goods are liable for confiscation and the manufacturer is liable for penalty. While interpreting these provisions the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Avanti LPG India Ltd. (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir obligation under Rule 209(1)(b). The respondent is neither the producer nor the registered person or a registered dealer. They are merely the users of the said goods. Consequently the goods cannot be called excisable goods in terms of the definition contained in Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944. "Excisable goods means goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
