9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case said finished goods were still lying in the factory. Therefore, they were not the goods on which duty was evaded and, therefore, they were not liable for confiscation and hence the penalty was not imposable on them - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/70036/2016-EX[SM] - A/70026/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 28-12-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t entered into B-11 bond on 22.10.2012. The Competent Authority ordered on 26.10.2012 provisional release of said seized goods. The goods were seized since it appeared that the goods were liable to Central Excise Duty. A show cause notice dated 02.04.2013 was issued with a proposal to confiscate said finished goods valued at ₹ 69,25,980/-. Further there was a proposal to impose penalty. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich were not cleared from the factory were entered into RG-1 Register and, therefore, they were not liable for confiscation and penalty was also not imposable. 4. Heard the learned AR who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, I find that the said show cause notice proposed confiscation of final product which were sti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
