TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (10) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri S.L. Meena, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 5-9-2003 wherein redemption fine has been imposed on the Appellants on ground of excess raw material found in their factory, and duty has been charged in respect of goods which were cleared by earlier company and duty has been charged on the scrap. 2. The learned Advocate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In respect of demand of duty on the clandestine removal of the goods by the earlier party he submits that the Appellants purchased the factory from M/s. Surya Industrial Corporation. The balance sheet of the Surya Industrial Corpn. was verified with RG-1 register and the department found mis-match of sales reported by the said unit. He submits that even if any demand is to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in their factory. He further submits that since there is a clandestine removal of the goods by Surya Industrial Corpn., and the appellants has taken over the assets and liabilities of the said Surya Industrial Corpn. the appellants are liable to pay duty as confirmed on Surya Industrial Corpn. 4. I find that the confiscation of the goods from the Appellant's factory, were actually cleared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailed on the inputs found short was settled by the Unit No. 1 with the Settlement Commission? In view of this, the confiscation of the inputs found in the appellants premises is not correct as the Appellants had not purchased these goods. Further the confiscation of the inputs would have arisen only if the credit has been availed and the inputs have not been duly accounted for. Since no Modvat was....