2007 (3) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellants are manufacturer of CTD Bars falling under Chapter 72 to the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, 1985. On a surprise visit of the Central Excise officers, it was noticed that there was a mismatch of finished goods and raw materials lying in the factory premises of the appellants. On reasonable doubt, the Central Excise officers seized the goods which were found excess than the recorded balance. Show cause notice was issued for confiscation and for imposition of penalty on the ground that the finished goods were unaccounted for clandestine removal and the seized raw material were for the purpose of using the same in the manufacture of finished goods which were to be removed clandestinely. The adjudicating authority confiscated the se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....destinely. On specific query from the Bench, whether the Revenue has challenged the findings to the Commissioner (Appeals) as regards the non-intention of clandestine removal, he answered in negative. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find from the records that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the redemption fine but upheld confiscation of the finished goods which were found in excess in the factory premises of the appellants. Though he has not given any specific reason, I find that once the finished goods which are lying unaccounted in the factory premises would get covered under the provisions of Rule 173Q(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules and are liable for confiscation and i....