9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods nor any proper reason to impose high amount of redemption fine for redeeming the confiscated goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/50576/2017 - A/53864/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 1-6-2017 - Mr. Ashok K. Arya, (Technical Member) Present Shri V.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant Present Ms Kannu Verma Kumar, DR for the respondent ORDER Per: Ashok K. Arya 1. M/s Ashoka Wire Industries is in appeal against Order in Appeal 303/2016 dated 09/02/2017 whereunder confiscation of the goods weighing 2625.05 kilograms of copper wire in WIP condition valued at ₹ 13,12,525/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belief that goods were likely to be removed without payment of duty. However, there is no evidence with the Department that subject goods were to be removed without payment of duty When the goods were lying in factory premises, how there could be a reasonable belief on the part of the Department that goods were likely to be removed without payment of duty , cannot be understood. 5. The Ld. DR, for the revenue says that there was no raw material account in case of the goods which were lying in (WIP) that is why the Department believed that the goods were likely to be removed without payment of duty. But the Ld. Advocate for the appellant says there is no Rule binding the appellant to maintain the raw material account as they were not cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asonable belief for seizure of the goods. It is the further submission of the JDR that, under Rule 173H, it was mandatory for the factory to explain the licit character of the goods by way of proper duty paying documents. I have considered the rival submissions. The issue before the Tribunal at present is whether the non-accountal of the goods in question in the Form IV Register and the factum of the goods not having been covered by any invoice would suffice for the purpose of confiscation of the goods under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and whether the omission to do so on the part of the party would call for imposition of penalty to the extent the lower authorities did by way of their respective orders. Having examined the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
