9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hapter 72 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Factory/Officer premises of the said appellant were put to search by the Officer on 30.07.2014 and detained the stock of input as also of finished goods, which was handed over to the appellant's representative under Supardginama dated 30.07.2014. Further search was made in the premises of M/s Dixit Iron Stores, the appellant's dealer on 30.07.2014 only. As the said appellant could not produce the documents showing the lawful possession of the stock, the same were detained for further investigation. The said appellant's premises located at Kabadi, were also put to search on the said date and stock of the goods were seized. 3. During the course of further inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He also confiscated the various materials seized from various places with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine so fixed by him. Being aggrieved with the order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the entire excess quantity of goods were detected by eye estimation and there was no weighment of the product ; that in the absence of actual weighment of the goods, it cannot be said that the goods were found in excess than the recorded stock ; that the demand of duty on the basis of the goods found from the private premises of the trader, cannot be upheld; that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed without any corroborative evidence. There is admittedly no corroboration to the effect that such 40 MT of Kamanies were manufactured in the factory of Raghuveer Rolling Mills. As such, I find no justifiable reason to uphold the said demand of duty. The appellant's reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Flevel International Vs. CCEx. Reported in 2016 (332) ELT 416 (Del.) as also in the case of Vishwa Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Vodora reported in 2012 (278) ELT 362 as confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCEx. Vs. Vishwa Traders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2013 (287) elt 243 (GUJ.), is appropriate. 7. As regards confiscation of the excess found raw materials a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Lucknow reported in 2014 (306) ELT 483 (Tri.-Del.) as also in the case of National Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported in 2003 (159) ELT 1172 (Tri.Del.) as also in the case of M/s Kashi Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vide Final Order Nos.70434-70438/2017 dated 12.04.2017, has held that un-accountal of goods while lying in the factory premises, cannot be confiscated on the ground that they were not intended to be removed as such. 9. As such, I find no justification for the confiscation of the goods. 10. Similarly, the confiscation of the goods found in the premises of M/s Dixit Iron Stores or imposition of penalty upon M/s Raghuveer Rolling Mills or M/s Dixit Iron Stores, lacks merit. 11. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
