2018 (6) TMI 775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ral Excise Rules, 2002, in the absence of any evidence by the Revenue, cannot be appreciated - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the Appellants Shri H C Saini, AR for the Respondent Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of Processed Food (Amla Candy) falling under Chapter Heading No. 20 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was alleged that the appellant had cleared the finished goods in bulk quantity for storage and preservation to various cold storages and the same was not processed by the cold storages except storage and preservation for time being on rental ba .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... find that the appellant has declared that they have appointed the cold storage to undertake job work/ preservation/ processing of their inputs namely Amla candy falling under tariff heading No. 20060000 into intermediate product namely Amla candy falling under tariff heading No. 20060000. The appellant further given the undertaking that the intermediate product which will be manufactured by the job worker will be used for manufacture of final product in their factory and shall be removed on payment of duty. It is an admitted fact in this case that the goods in question were sent to the cold storages for keeping under low temperature to preserve the appearance, aroma and taste of the goods. Thus, the declaration of the appellant that goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ral Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed without any mens rea or wilful intention." 4. As is seen from the above, the appellate authority has arrived at a finding that there was no malafide on the part of the assessee in the entire procedure so adopted after intimating the Revenue. 5. In such a scenario, imposition of penalty on the sole ground of non-observing of procedural requirement of Rule 4(4) cannot be appreciated. Otherwise also, I note that the penalty was originally imposed under section 1AC of the Act which stand already set aside by Commissioner (Appeals). As such, fresh imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, in the absence of any evidence by the Revenue, cannot be appreciated. 6. Accordingly, I set .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X