9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Central Excise Act for seizure of raw materials and confiscation of raw materials - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2153 & 2154/2010-EX[SM] - A/70078-70079/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 13-1-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri S.K. Pandey, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, (Supdt.) (A.R.) for the Department. Per Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeals are filed against OIA No.107-108/CE/ALLD/2010 dated 31.03.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, Central Excise offices visited manufacturing premises of M/s. K.K. Tobacco Company and residence of the other appellant and recovered one diary which they call R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 25 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on Shri Laxmi Kant Pandey. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No. MP (Dem-18/2008) 03 of 2009 dated 29.01.2009. The order passed by the Original Authority is reproduced below (i) I order for the confiscation of the seized 27 polythene bags containing 78,300 puches and 344 packed bags containing 29952 pouches of Deshi Gutkha, totally valued at ₹ 49,126/- only involving Central Excise Duty of ₹ 16,698/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, I give an option to the party that they may redeem the seized goods on payment of Redemption Fine of ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). These goods shall be entered in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charging of appropriate Interest on the Central Excise duty so evaded for the delayed payment under section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 . Aggrieved by the said order, appellants preferred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) decided the said appeal through OIA No.107-108/CE/ALLD/2010 dated 31.03.2010. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeals. Aggrieved by the said OIA, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for appellant who has submitted that there are large number of case laws in which it is held that goods manufactured and not cleared from the factory and not entered into RG-1 Register are not liable for seizure and confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22.05.2007 to 29.05.2007 and therefore the demand in respect of Central Excise duty on 5570 kg Gutkha is sustainable. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records, I find that the show cause notice had proposed confiscation of goods manufactured in the factory and not cleared from the factory. The duty is to be paid only when the goods are cleared from the factory and only such goods are liable for confiscation which are removed without payment of duty. Therefore, the seizure and confiscation of goods manufactured in the factory and not cleared is not sustainable in lawn. Therefore, related penalties are also not sustainable in law. Further there is no provision in Central Excise Act for seizure of raw materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
