9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3.The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. wire cables, insulated shield copper conductor etc. On verification of their stock on 15-12-1997 by the Preventive Staff 22,764 mtrs. of finished wire/cable valued at Rs. 5,36,127/- chargeable to Central Excise duty of Rs. 96,503/- were found unaccounted for in the statutory record. These goods were lying in the finished room in a packed condition. Shri A.K. Jain, Deputy General Manager of the appellants even admitted the non-accountal of the goods in the record. The Assistant Commissioner through the order-in-original accordingly ordered the confiscation of the goods but gave option to the appellants to redeem th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customer (iii) Wires which were not defective in quality but were manufactured over and above the requirement of the customer and were spill over quantities. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not disputed that the 1st category of the wires and cables was not required to be entered into in Column 15 or 16 of the RG. 1 Register. However, the other two categories were required to be entered into which the appellants failed to do. But, no such findings had been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that these goods (categories 2 and 3) were ready for despatch or were being loaded in a vehicle for removal from the factory at the time of seizure by the Preventive Staff of the Central Excise. No vehicle for loading the good was found parked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or final goods should have been in the preparation for such removal or they must have been seized while being transported without recovery or gate passes and without payment of duty." 9.The learned SDR has not been able to point out any material or evidence on the record to show that at the time of seizure of the goods the appellants were about to remove the same from the factory premises by loading in the vehicle or were making preparations for such removal. Therefore, the criteria laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the above referred case for taking penal action under Rules 173Q and 53 of the Rules does not stand satisfied in the instant case. Consequently, the confiscation of the goods could not be legally ordered. Only p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
