9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant would pay the duty in respect of the said seized goods (if not already paid), at the time of their clearance. Cash recovered from the premises of M/s Naveen Impex - Held that: - there was no allegation in the show cause notice in respect of the Indian currency being the sale proceeds of the smuggled or clandestinely removed items - decided in favor of assessee. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Excise Appeals No. 50184, 50310 and 50566-50567 of 2018 (SM) - Final Order No. 51823-51826/2018 - Dated:- 14-5-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Ms. Seema Jain, Advocate for the appellants/respondents S/Shri K. Poddar and S. Nunthuk, Authorized Representative (DRs) for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Udyog on the allegations of clandestine removal of copper ingots and further duty of ₹ 90,846/- in respect of the copper ingots lying in the factory. No demand was raised against M/s Naveen Impex but penalty was proposed under Section 11AC readwith Rule 25. 4. The two show cause notices were adjudicated by the Original Adjudicating Authority confiscating the final product as also the raw materials lying in the factory of M/s Seema Dhatu Udyog, with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. The demand raised by the second show cause notice was confirmed to the extent of ₹ 48,44,398/- with equal amount of penalty on M/s Seema Dhatu Udyog. In addition, demand of ₹ 98,46,000/- alongwith i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal by the appellants as also by the Revenue. 7. The appellants have challenged the order of confiscation of the finished goods as also the raw material by submitting that raw material cannot be confiscated in view of the absence of provisions in the act and as held by the Tribunal in number of decisions. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon ble High Court as well as of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi II vs. Ganpati Rollings Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 (338) E.L.T. 587 (Del.), as also in the case of Kashi Laminators (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Lucknow reported in 2014 (314) E.L.T. 327 (Tri. Del.). As regards the confiscation of the final product, they submitted there was no allegation of any intended removal and in the absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the same cannot be confiscated on the ground of their non-entry in the records, especially when no Modvat credit stand availed in respect of such raw materials. As regards final product, I note that there is nothing on record to suggest that non-entry of the same in the records was with a malafide intention. In such a scenario, I agree with the appellants that confiscation of the goods or imposition of penalties upon the appellant was neither justified nor warranted. Accordingly, their confiscation alongwith imposition of penalties is set aside. However, it is made clear that the appellant would pay the duty in respect of the said seized goods (if not already paid), at the time of their clearance. Accordingly, the appeal of M/s Seema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
