9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - decided in favor of appellant. - E/52489/2015-EX[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 71025/2018 - Dated:- 29-1-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Ms. Stuti Saggi, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is, whether the appellant was tallying excess molasses without recording the same in their RG-1 register with intent to remove those clandestinely. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant producer of Sugar Molasses and stored the molasses in steel tanks. There was an inspection on 18/01/2013 and the total quantity of molasses as per records of the three tanks was 1,06, 845.4 Qtls. and from this the qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33,21,028/- which was submitted at the time of provisional release of the seized goods. However no personal penalty was imposed on Shri Anurag Sharma Assistant Manager (Sales). 4. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order wherein he pleased to uphold the confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of redemption fine. Further penalty imposed has been reduced to ₹ 2 lakhs. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant-assessee is before this Tribunal. The ld. counsel brings to notice that molasses are in the physical custody of the State Excise Department. The State Excise Department takes regular measurements and after taken to the situation allowed adjustment of exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requisite permit from the State Excise Authority. Ld. Counsel for the appellant points out that save and except the allegations of excess in quantity of molasses were found on the date of inspection through dip reading method, therefore, there is no allegation in the said Show Cause Notice even the whole allegation of clandestine removal is imaginary and fit to be set aside. The ld. Counsel for the appellant filed reply of Show Cause Notice on 07th August, 2014 before Additional Commissioner wherein detail of molasses excess noted dated 04/02/2013, 28/02/2013, 27/04/2013, 10/07/2013, 27/08/2013 03/09/2013, wherein State Excise Authority has certified the detail of shortage/ excess of molasses as follows:- Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relied upon the impugned Order-in-Appeal of the Tribunal and further emphasis that the courts below have also given relief of 10% normal variation under the dip reading method. Further, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have reduced the penalty imposed and as such the impugned order be upheld and the appeal be dismissed. 7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I find that save and except the excess quantity of molasses that there is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice. Further, I find that the appellant cannot discharge any quantity of molasses without specific permissions issued by the State Excise Authority, even for own consumption, the appellant is required to obtain requisite permit from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
