TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred as Unit II) and appeal against order-in-original No. 19/05-06, dated 31-8-05 filed by M/s. Kiran Pondy Chems Ltd., Unit I (referred as Unit I). The impugned order sustained orders of the original authority. Facts of the case are the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sodium Silicate Soluble Glass (SSSG) and Sodium Silicate Liquid (SSL) falling under Chapter Heading 283910. Unit II are job workers of Unit I. On 8-6-2004, officers attached to the Karaikal Central Excise Division paid a surprise visit to both the units. They found that Unit I had not entered details of daily production in production register after 4-6-2004. Production and clearance details for 5th and 6th had not been entered in any register. On scrutiny of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also imposed on the appellants under Rule 25 of the CER for improper maintenance of accounts and generation of duplicate invoice. 2. A quantity of 122.529 M.Ts of Soda Ash found in excess of the accounted quantity of raw material seized on 8-6-2004 from the premises of Unit II was confiscated under Rule 25 of the CER vide order-in-original No. 18/05-06. The assessee (Unit II) was offered an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The original authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Unit II under Rule 25 of the CER. 3. The impugned order has been assailed as regards its confirmation of order-in-original No. 19/05-06 on the ground that the allegation of clandestine clearance was foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(i) Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J172) (S.C.) (ii) Madhu Foods Products v. CCE, Hyderabad - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 197 (Tri.) (iii) Sulara Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bolpur - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 230 (Tri.-Kolkata) (iv) CCE, Ahmedabad v. Ronak Laminex P. Ltd. - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 861 (Tri.-Ahmed) The challenge to confiscation of raw material found in excess in both premises, their confiscation, redemption fine and penalty ordered is on the basis that Rule 25 of the CER does not provide for confiscation of raw material. This claim is sought to be supported by a decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. Narmadha Fabrics P. Ltd. [2009 (233) E.L.T. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of clandestine removal in the absence of any evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods. In Madhu Foods Products case (supra) the Tribunal vacated the demand of duty on the charge of clandestine clearances for the reason that Revenue had not brought on record evidence to prove removal of goods from factory premises without payment of duty; the estimate as a basis was subject to several limitations. Also in Hilton Tobaccos Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad [2005 (183) E.L.T. 378 (Tri. Bang.)], it was held that allegations based on theoretical working considering certain private records without any corroborative evidence were not sustainable. In Veer Bahadur Products v. CCE, Kanpur [2006 (201) E.L.T. 359 (Tri.-Del.)] the finding of cland....