9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. As such, the order of confiscation and penalty is bad and fit to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.51955 of 2014 - A/58152/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 16-10-2017 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Appellants Shri G R Singh, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is whether on the date of inspection that is 23/01/2012, whether the appellant had stocked finished goods clandestinely for clearing without payment of duty as have been held by the courts below. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of Ferro manganese falling under chapter 72 and also registered under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counted for in the statutory register and mostly sold in packed condition after achieving the required specifications. In reply to question number 6 wherein he was asked do you admit the excess stock of quantity 78.100 MT of Ferro manganese fines found in excess during search conducted under panchnama dated 23/01/2012, he replied that the above material was neither raw material, nor finished goods. It was work-in-progress as the desired percentage has not been achieved. Hence, it was not accounted for in finished goods register and also not considered as finished goods. It appeared to Revenue that the said statement of the Director classifying the goods as work-in-progress was an after-thought and not tenable. Since they have failed to pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de on presumptions and assumptions. In spite of a specific statement made during investigation that the goods in question are semi-finished goods or work-in-progress, Revenue have not cared to make any further investigation by way of obtaining test report and simply rejected the statement of the Director recorded under section 14 of the Act. Thus, the allegations of Revenue are vague and as such, the order of confiscation and penalty is fit to be set aside. Further, as regards the differential duty, when goods are sold at a higher price by the consignment agent, it is no case of Revenue that such sales transaction was not recorded in the books of account and further as the appellant had accepted that the differential duty short paid and had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
