9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized by the Department. It is apparent that there was no denial on part of the appellant at the time of said such search, for stock found and seized finished goods. It is only six months after that the appellant came up with a plea that the stock as was found at the time of search was not of finished goods. Except the said submission there is apparently no such documentary evidence produced by the appellant which may falsify the details of six various kinds of final goods and the respective quantity as was got recorded in the panchnama on 21.7.2014. The mere submission of the appellant that since the testing and inspection by their buyers was not yet conducted that the goods could not be called as finished goods is also not tenable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive of subsequent absence the matter shall be decided based on merits. In view of the said order and in view of the absence of the appellant today as well (despite the said order), I hereby proceed to decide these two appeals on merits. 2. The relevant facts in brief for the purpose are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. On the basis of intelligence that the goods have been manufactured and cleared by the appellant without payment of appropriate duties that search was conducted in four factory premises of the appellant on 21.7.2014. The searches at all the four places i.e. M/s. Vaibhav Metacast Pvt. Ltd. 116-117, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur, M/s. Hindustan Industries, 20, Jh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 Roller 24 1320000 6. Liner Plate 6.50 357500 Total 376.70 2,20,37,228 3. The Value of these goods was assessed as ₹ 2,30,37,228/- and the excise duty thereof was assessed as ₹ 27,23,801/-. Since the same was not paid, accordingly a show cause notice no. 1742 dated 13.1.2015 was served upon the appellant proposing the recovery of the alleged short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details of the stock of finished goods as was found available in the premises of the appellant and was seized by the Department. 6. From paragraph 10 of the order as impressed upon by the learned DR it is apparent that there was no denial on part of the appellant at the time of said such search, for stock found and seized finished goods. It is only six months after that the appellant came up with a plea that the stock as was found at the time of search was not of finished goods. Except the said submission there is apparently no such documentary evidence produced by the appellant which may falsify the details of six various kinds of final goods and the respective quantity as was got recorded in the panchnama on 21.7.2014 (as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ix various kinds of finished goods found lying in the appellant s fourth premises is not on record. 9. The mere submission of the appellant that since the testing and inspection by their buyers was not yet conducted that the goods could not be called as finished goods is also not tenable for want of specification of testing and inspection. In the given circumstances, I am of the opinion that appellant has violated rule 10 of Central Excise Rules 2002. There is no infirmity in the order under challenge while confirming the proposal not only of the demand of not paid excise duty but also of the confiscation. 10. The redemption fine of ₹ 4,08,570/- as was imposed vide order in original dated 15.3.2017 and as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
