2011 (8) TMI 881

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed under Rule 15A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent and engaged in the manufacture of aluminium extrusion profiles falling under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They also availed CENVAT credit on input service under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Working on information, officers of Central Excise conducted physical stock verification on 5-10-2008 at the factory of the respondent. After verification of physical stock, 3.067 MTs of finished goods were found in excess than the book stock. The Central Excise officers also had the subsequent visit on 12-10-2008 and they found excess raw materials of 1445 Kgs. than the declared stock. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the clear findings. Firstly in case of finished goods, even if the goods which were not recorded the goods were less than a day's production capacity and secondly the raw materials are not liable to confiscation under Rule 25. He fairly conceded that they are not challenging the penalties imposed under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules and Rule 15A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He further submitted that the department has not produced any evidence for any mala fide intention or fraud on part of the respondent. Therefore, the finished goods are not liable for confiscation. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Surya Narayan Silk Mi....