9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation – Transaction of ‘yarn’ as noticed by officer was genuine -Neither credit availed on the yarn not it was put under process during verification of stock – Confiscation is unsustainable X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. The Revenue, therefore, alleged that the said yarn was meant for clandestine processing and removal by the respondent without accounting in the books. The goods were, therefore, liable to be confiscated and penalty was imposable on the respondent. 3. According to the respondent, the partner Mr. Sunil Kumar who was present when the officers visited the premises, was ignorant about the acquisit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under Rule 27. 5.The Appellate Commissioner relied upon the two invoices of the yarn produced by the respondent and held that, since on the investigation of the matter there was no discrepancy noticed the goods could not be confiscated. He referred to the decisions of the Tribunal in Gulab Chand Silk Mills v. CCE, Hyderabad, reported in 2002 (49) RLT 211 (Tribunal) and CCE v. Ajmer Foods Indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Admittedly, no Cenvat credit was availed on the grey yarn, nor was it put under process during the verification of the stock. The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, right in holding that the confiscation of the raw material was not warranted. Reliance placed by the learned authorized representative of the department on the decision of the Tribunal in Hindustan Processors Ltd. v. CCE, report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
