2006 (12) TMI 375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri S.L. Meena, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 23-8-2004 that upheld the order-in-original which confiscated the goods found in excess and imposed penalty on the appellant. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturers of sugar and molasses. The appellants store molass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....173Q. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded with the findings of the adjudicating authority and upheld the order-in-original. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the confiscation and imposition of penalty is not warranted as it was recorded at the time of verification of stock itself that the increase in the stock was due to excess rain water....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erused the records. It is undisputed that the excess quantity was found by the visiting officers in the open pit. Storing of molasses in open pit is permitted activity in respect of sugar factories and there is no dispute that appellant had permission to store molasses in open pit. It is also undisputed that the excess stock was due to rain water that got accumulated in the open pit. The Revenue h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rease in stock was not man-made but by nature's action, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- as the appellants have at the most not considered the excess stock for accountal purpose. 6. Having held that excess stock is liable for confiscation and it is found from records that there is no intention on the part of the appellants to clear the said goods without payment of duty, penal....