9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 has also been increased to Rs. 10 lakhs. 2. The brief facts are that: i. Central Excise officers. intercepted a tempo during preventive checks, on 19/12/2007 carrying copper wire rods. During checking of documents carried with the tempo, 2025 kilogram of copper valued at Rs. 6,48,000/- carried in the said tempo was found without any valid transport document, and, therefore, was placed under seizure. ii. Thereafter, officers. visited the factory premises of the appellant and found that 26949.200 kilograms of Copper Rods (final product of the assessee appellant) valued at Rs. 86,23,744/- was in excess of the last recorded balance. The Excess finished prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... increased original redemption fine and also imposed additional redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs as mentioned earlier. vii. Now, the appellant is in appeal against the said impugned order in appeal. 3. With the background of above facts both the sides represented by the Ld Counsels, Shri Kamaljeet Singh for the appellant and Shri G.R. Singh for the Revenue have been heard. 4. After having carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of both the sides, it appears. that the impugned Order in Appeal has ignored the fact that on the day of the visit to the factory the shortage of raw material was recorded along with the excess of finished goods. The appellant has pleaded that when the fact of shortage and excess is considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MP) and Tribunal's decision in case of CCE, Delhi Vs Ganpati Rolling Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (303) ELT 240 (Tri-Del.), saying that when finished goods have not been recorded in RG-1 register and when shortage of raw material has been accepted by the appellant assessee the excess goods found in the factory premises are liable for payment of duty and therefore Order in Appeal deserves to be sustained. 4.2. On the other hand, Ld Advocate for the appellant cited the Tribunal's decision in case of Arya Fibers. Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Allahabad 2014 (311) ELT (Tri-Allahabad) saying that there is no tangible evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearance by the appellant and the facts on record do not indicate any inferences to that effect. 4.3. When the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
