Appeal successful as Tribunal rules in favor of appellant against confiscation and penalties.

The appeal was filed by M/s. Jai Beverages Pvt. Ltd. against the confiscation of goods and imposition of personal penalties. The appellant argued that duty was paid on the goods found excess in the factory, stored separately due to space constraints in the duty paid godown. The Tribunal found that the goods were duty paid and the excess quantity in the factory matched the shortage in the duty paid stock. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against confiscation of goods, imposition of personal penalties, duty payment, excess goods in factory, duty paid godown shortage, interpretation of Central Excise Rules.

The appellant, M/s. Jai Beverages Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the impugned order confiscating goods found excess in the factory and imposing personal penalties. The appellant contended that duty was paid on the goods in question, which were separately kept in the factory due to non-availability of transport to the duty paid godown. The appellant argued that as the goods were duty paid, they were not liable for confiscation, citing a precedent where demand based on unaccounted goods found in the factory was deemed unsustainable (CCE v. Ludhiana Bottling Co., 1997). The Revenue contended that there was no provision under Central Excise Rules to keep duty paid goods in the factory and justified the confiscation based on excess crown corks found in the factory.

The Tribunal noted that there was no shortage of concentrate supplied by Pepsi Food Ltd. for manufacturing aerated water. It was confirmed that duty was paid on the goods in question, which were stored separately in the factory due to space constraints in the duty paid godown. The quantity of goods found excess in the factory was almost equal to the shortage in the duty paid stock, as per the explanation provided by the Finance Manager to the Excise officers. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeal.

Separate Judgment: None.

---