9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the trading premises were beyond the jurisdiction of Central Excise Officers - also, the contentions raised by learned Counsel for appellant are sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. E/3343-3345/2012-EX[DB] - Final Order Nos. 71637-71639 / 2018 - Dated:- 23-7-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Anurag Mishra Ms Pragya Pandey, Advocates, for Appellants Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Additional Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per : Anil G. Shakkarwar The above stated three appeals are taken up together for decision since they are arising out of common impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 126-128-CE/GZB/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises. The case was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, who confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty, confiscated the goods and imposed remission fine of ₹ 30 lakhs. He imposed personal penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs on Shri Sandeep Gupta. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the personal penalty on Shri Sandeep Gupta and did not interfere with remaining part of the order of Original Authority. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant. He has submitted that the goods in the trading premises were purchased from various manufacturers and traders along wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G-1 register so that on clearance such goods suffer duty and that such goods had not been removed from the factory of manufacturer and therefore, they did not become contravening goods and were not liable for confiscation. In so for as raw material and semi finished goods are concerned in the manufacturing premises the same have not crossed the stage of manufacture and therefore Central Excise duty did not become due on them and therefore, they were not contravening goods. Further, the duty demand of ₹ 3,38,129/- was on the goods seized at the factory premises and that such demand was not sustainable because the goods were still within the factory and would have suffered duty on clearance. 4. Heard the learned A.R. for revenue, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
