9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e visited the appellants' factory premises and conducted physical verification of the stock of finished goods and raw-materials vis-à-vis book balance recorded in the statutory register. During the course of such verifications, the Officers found some shortage of finished goods, involving the duty amount of Rs. 44,745/-. Further, with regard to some other finished goods involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,24,321/-, they found those to be in excess, in comparison to the recorded balance. Accordingly, after initiation of show cause proceedings, the matter was adjudicated vide order dated 04.01.2016, in appropriating Central Excise duty amount of Rs. 44,745/- and penalty of Rs. 11,186/- already paid by the appellant. Besides, finishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demption fine and penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 ibid and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. To support the stand that the finished goods cannot be confiscated under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Advocate has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ambe Laboratories - 2017 (6) GSTL 175 (Tri.-Del.). 3. On the other hand, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submits that the statement recorded from the authorized officer of the appellant has not been retracted and also the finished goods found in excess was beyond the installed capacity of production of the machines. Thus, he submits that the appellants have n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of search of the factory by the Departmental officers on 12.09.2006, the officers noticed that a part of the production was not accounted in the statutory records. Such accounted goods totally valued at Rs. 4,17,405/- was seized and subsequently confiscated. The submission of the appellant in this case is that the excess goods seized were the production of 10.09.2006 and 11.09.2006 and were yet to be packed in big cartons as such they were not entered in RG-1. We find that the goods said to be excess were found within the factory. The reason advanced by the appellant is fully justified and since the goods remained within the factory there is no justification for seizure and confiscation of such goods. Consequently, the confiscation is set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
