9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to make necessary entries in the RG-I Register for the excess goods found in stock. Since the issue involved in the present case relates to confiscation of excess found finished goods and the same, is not proper and justified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/50852/2017[SM] - A/58065/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 24-11-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant: Mr. V. Swaminathan, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. K. Poddar, D.R. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PVC Gaskets, PVC Profiles/Strips and PVC Compound, falling under Tariff Heading 8418, 3916/3921 3812 respectively to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is not contesting the duty demand confirmed on the shortage of finished goods found by the Central Excise Officers. With regard to such demand, he submits that the appellant had already paid such duty together with 25% penalty and accordingly, prayed for closure of the issue regarding shortage of the finished goods. 2.2. With regard to finished goods found in excess in the factory premises of the appellant, ld. Advocate submits that the RG-I Register was maintained by the appellant considering the production took place upto 26.02.2015. Further, he submits that since the factory of the appellant was visited by the Officers of Central Excise Department on 27.02.2005 and resumed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of RG-I Register on 27.02.2015 can be considered as reasonable. Further, the Department has not produced any other evidence to show that the appellant had the motive or intention to remove the excess found stock without payment of duty. Therefore, non-maintenance of record under the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot lead to the conclusion that the same are liable for confiscation. Further, the question of duty payment arises only on removal of the finished goods, which in the present case, has not been removed from the factory by the appellant. 6. I find that in an entirely identical set of facts, this Tribunal in the case of Ambe Laboratories (supra) has held that since the goods were remained within the factory, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
