2008 (1) TMI 767

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Meena, DR, for the Respondent. [Order].  - The Appellant No. 1 a registered dealer, has filed this appeal against confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty. The Appellant No. 2 is Authorized Signatory of Appellant No. 1 has filed this appeal against imposition of penalty. It has been alleged in the show cause notice that the appellants were engaged in issuing Modvat invoices with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t No. 1 and further penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on Appellant No. 2. 2. The learned Advocate submits that show cause notice alleged non-accountal of goods and there is no allegation that the appellants wrongly availed the credit and therefore, confiscation and penalty are not sustainable. He relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal. He further submits that authorized signatory is an employ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and therefore, the contention of learned DR is not sustainable. The Adjudicating Authority observed that there was a huge stock of 30 different types of plastic granules stored in the approved godown. He observed that due to shortage of storage space, it was not stored properly and therefore proper verification was not possible. Storage of space further gets established from the fact that store ro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t liable for confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the case of Ganga Industries v. CCE reported in 2007 (209) E.L.T. 140, the Tribunal held that non-accountal of goods, lying within the factory, Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules cannot be attracted. The same view is also expressed in the following cases :- (1)     Sujana Universal Indus....