9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing no finding that the appellant intended to take the scrap outside the factory premises, the confiscation of the scrap which, according to the appellant, was to be recycled, cannot be held to be justified and, consequently, the confiscation of scrap as well as penalty levied cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee - 7218 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2006 - Ashok Bhan and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ. [Order]. - This statutory appeal has been filed by M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., the appellant herein, under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") against the Final Order No. C-I/3026, dated 8th September, 2000 in Appeal No. 593/96-Bom. passed by the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led reply denying the allegations made in the show cause notice and claimed that the authorities sought to confiscate the scrap lying in the factory premises of the appellant although the same was to be recycled and reused for further manufacture of the same product and imposed penalty. 6.The adjudicating authority, i.e, the Commissioner of Central Excise at Aurangabad did not decide the question regarding classification and held that since the notice issued was beyond the period of limitation, the demand created against the appellant could not be sustained. Further, on the scrap recovered from the factory premises of the appellant weighing 70 MT the value of which was assessed at Rs. 37.80 lakhs, was held to be liable to confiscation und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d created was beyond the period of limitation. Question of classification is left open. There being no finding that the appellant intended to take the scrap outside the factory premises, the confiscation of the scrap which, according to the appellant, was to be recycled, cannot be held to be justified and, consequently, the confiscation of scrap as well as penalty levied cannot be sustained. 11.For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order of the Tribunal on confiscation of the goods and penalty is set aside and the appeal allowed with no order as to costs. Since the amount of Rs. 4.69 lakhs has already been recovered by the revenue, revenue is directed to reimburse the appellant of the aforesaid amount along with statutory int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
