9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture or Power Rack, Pinion, Steering gearing of various models and pumps for liquids and parts of pumps etc. falling under chapter 87. They were issued with show cause notice dated 22-11-2000 vide which they were called upon to show cause as to why the duty involved on the stolen goods to the tune of Rs. 70,694/- should not be demanded from them as per Section 11A of Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. They, however, contested the notice by alleging that the stolen goods were not finished goods and were also not marketable and as such no duty could be demanded in respect thereof. The goods being in the assembly line for the purpose of testing, were not entered in RG 1 register. They also sought remiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rketability of the goods. 6. We have heard both sides and gone through the records. The stolen goods were 'gears' and we find from the Order-in-Original that except for testing, the goods were complete in all respect. They were duly manufactured goods and even serial numbers were also allotted to them. Only the testing of the goods were left. As it is and without testing, the goods could be cleared and sold in the market. The testing of the goods was only to ascertain its quality, similarly non-entry of the goods in the RG.1 register by the appellants did not render the goods non-manufactured and non-marketable. There is no dispute with regard to this proposition of law as laid down by the Tribunal in the above case that the burden to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Golden Hills Estates v. CCE, Madras, 1997 (90) E.L.T. 301 (Mad.). 7. The letter of the Superintendent, on which much stress has been made by the counsel during the course of the arguments, does not take the case of the appellants to any logical conclusion. The letter issued by the Superintendent, rather informed them that the stolen goods were not in semi-finished but in almost finished condition, though not entered in the RG.1 at the time of theft. Thus the letter, in fact, does not in any manner help the appellants for claiming remission of duty. The range Superintendent even informed the appellants that they were liable to pay full duty in respect of stolen goods. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
