9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s angles, channels, joist and other goods (totaling to 1158 MT), the explanation offered by the appellant is that they had installed new machineries in the rolling mills and these goods were produced in the trial run during May 2012 - Held that - There is nothing on record to support the argument that such goods were manufactured in trial run and did not meet the necessary specifications - In the present case, this quantity of finished goods have been manufactured but not accounted in the statutory records. Consequently, the goods are liable for confiscation and appellant will be liable for penalty in terms of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. In the result, confiscation is upheld. Keeping in mind the doctrine of equity, fairness and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The goods found in excess were seized under the belief that the same were intended to be cleared without payment of duty. After completion of investigation, a show cause notice dated 31.12.2012 was issued to the appellant proposing confiscation of the seized goods. The adjudicating authority, vide the impugned order, confiscated the seized goods, totally valued at ₹ 4,66,69,108/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and allowed the same for redemption on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 70,00,366/- and penalty of ₹ 46,66,911. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above background, we heard Ms. Reena Khair, advocate as well as Shri R.K. Mishra, DR. 3. The le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was being recorded in the morning, on the next working day. The production of 116 MT billets/blooms was manufactured on 12.07.2012, till morning of 13.07.2012, and would have been entered in the records, but for the officer s visit. The balance of 16 MT may be on account of mistake committed during stock taking. (b) As far as the angles, channels, joist and beam are concerned, they had installed a new technology of transferring billets/blooms to Rolling Mill, for which trial run was done in May, 2012, however, such trial production remained unaccounted. There was a misalignment of machines, on account of which, the blooms/billets got cooled, and proper rolling could not be done. It was yet to be decided whether it was to be consumed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quantity of 132 MT is roughly one day s production and the explanation is that this would have been accounted but for the relevant documents being withdrawn by the officers. After appreciating the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that non accountal of this quantity of finished goods can be condemned in the light of the explanation offered by the appellant. In any case, goods were found within the factory and consequently, the confiscation of this quantity of finished products is not justified and hence set aside. 7. As regards angles, channels, joist and other goods (totaling to 1158 MT), the explanation offered by the appellant is that they had installed new machineries in the rolling mills and these goods were produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
