9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit of Rs. 20 lac - E/670-672/2006-SM - 78-80/2009-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 16-1-2009 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Rastogi, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal against order-in-appeal dated 19-12-05 passed by CCE (Appeals), Kanpur, by which he upheld the order-in-original dated 29-6-04 passed by Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur ordering confiscation of finished excisable goods worth Rs. 10,27,480/- and Rs. 8,65,600/- seized from the factory premises of the Appellants-company under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with option to be redeemed on redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 1,28,500/- and Rs. 50,000/- respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23-12-61. The impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) without hearing the Appellants. (5) Confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 8,65,000/- is wrong as this was the stock of returned goods which is apparent from the Panchnama dated 30-5-03 of the factory's search and statements dated 3-7-03 of Shri Rajesh Dixit and dated 10-7-03 of Shri Rajesh Agarwal. (6) The stock of finished goods not entered in RG-1 register was not liable for confiscation as there is no evidence that the same was attempted to be removed without payment of duty. In this regard, reliance is placed on Tribunal's judgment in cases of Bhillai Conductors Pvt. Ltd. CCE, Raipur reported in 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (T) and CCE, Rajkot v. Amrit Ceramics ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant and Shri Rajesh Dixit and Rajesh Agarwal in their statements have admitted that the unaccount raw material had been purchased in cash and was to be used in 11 undeclared machines clearly indicates that the finished goods made out of undeclared stock of laminate would have been cleared without payment of duty. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 3.1 First point raised by the Appellants is regarding the competence of the Joint Commissioner to adjudicate this matter. I do not accept this plea of the Appellants as under proviso to Section 33, the Board can confer the powers of adjudication of the Commissioner on any Central Excise officer and the Board vide circular No. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the original adjudication stage nor in course of proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals). Moreover, it is also seen that both the authorized representatives of the Appellants-company - Shri Rajesh Agarwal and Rajesh Dixit were present throughout at the time of the search of the factory premises on 29th and 30th May 2003 and had signed the Panchnama. The Appellants have neither given any satisfactory reason for seeking the cross examination of the punch witnesses nor have they availed the opportunity of personal hearing at the original adjudication stage. In view of this, there is no substance in the Appellant's plea of denial natural justice. 3.3 It has been pleaded that the seized finished goods valued at Rs. 10,27,480/- are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
