9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri S. Mukhopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) - FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Per SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various grades of bulk tea which are exempted from Central Excise Duty. During the period from 2010-11 to 2012-13, the appellant had purchased raw coal from different suppliers who were local dealers of coal. The invoices issued by such dealers were tax invoices that did not reflect the duty amount. 2. During an inspection by the departmental officers, they seized 300MT of coal lying as stock in the factory premises. The goods were then provisionally released on payment of security deposit of ₹ 1,80,000/- and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is not legally tenable, and set aside the demand of duty. Thus, it is clear from the findings of the Commissioner (Appeal) that the Department failed to make any inquiry of actual payment of duty by the manufacturer/producer. Hence, the confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty is not justified. Further, the demand of Service Tax is without examining the records and documents. The Tribunal in the case of G.N. Altech (supra) held as under: 2. ....Reliance has been placed upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Nucor Wires Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 646 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein in para 4(e), it was held as under :- Examining the liability for confiscation under Rule 173Q(1)(a) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion therefore, can not be uphold . 3. In view of the above decision and inasmuch as, there is neither any allegation nor any evidence on record as regards the appellant s knowledge about the non-duty paid character goods. I do not find any justifiable reason to confiscate the same. Accordingly confiscation of the goods is set aside and the appeal is allowed in above terms. 7. The Ld. Representative for the Department relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Boishabi Tea Estate others Vs. CCE ST, Dibrugarh, vide order No. F.O. 75954 TO 75956/2017 DATED- 29-05-2017. In that case, the C.E. officers collected the information that the producer of Raw-Coal had been supplying non-duty paid raw-coal to the purchaser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
