9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption. Most of the purchase bills produced by the appellant, where reference is to nuts. The present case is relating to bolts with names embossed on them. As such, we find that the purchase documents cannot be linked with the seized goods. Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that: - In respect of the goods, which were still lying in the factory, no duty demand can be confirmed and accordingly, equivalent penalty cannot be imposed in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, we find that the confirmation of duty demand and imposition of equal amount of penalty on the goods, which are still lying in the factory premises, is not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Ex. Appeal No.297 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of ₹ 15.00 lakhs. He imposed penalty of ₹ 7,57,334/-, which is equal to the duty amount in terms of Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 read with the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the said order was upheld by the impugned order. 3. The ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted that they did not manufacture any branded items. The name and letter figuring on the bolts recovered during investigation by the officer, cannot be considered as brand name to bar them for availing SSI exemption. In fact, they are generic abbreviation and cannot be treated as brand name. In this connection, he relies on a letter issued by one of the client stating that they do not have any brand name and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfied. What is required is connection should be established in the course of trading between the impugned goods and some persons identified with such goods. Regarding confiscation of goods seized, he submitted that non-accountal of excisable goods, is one of the reason, for which the goods can be ordered to be confiscated in terms of Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The first point for decision is as to whether the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods with brand name of another person. On perusal of the evidences available on record, we note that the impugned goods, have distinct endorsement as 'HRS', 'ASI'. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d were engaged in the manufacture of goods with brand name of others. Admittedly, such non-accountal of manufactured excisable goods will attract the provisions of Rule 25, as available during the relevant time. 10. Regarding the submission of the ld.Counsel for the appellant that the penalty cannot be imposed, equivalent to duty when there is no short payment of duty in respect of the goods, which were non-cleared from the factory, we note that there is a force in such submission. In respect of the goods, which were still lying in the factory, no duty demand can be confirmed and accordingly, equivalent penalty cannot be imposed in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, we find that the confirmation of duty d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
