TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p first for consideration. The due date for filing the appeals in Central Excise on 26/03/2010 and the appellant had prepared three sets of appeals and also three demand drafts for Rs.10,500/- each for filing the appeal. The registry informed that three show-cause notices have been adjudicated by a common order and only a single appeal needs to be filed and only one demand draft of Rs.10,500/- has to be submitted. Accordingly, they had filed one appeal for three co-noticees, even though they had prepared three appeals. Subsequently, the Advocate informed the Registry that they need to file two more appeals and accordingly they filed two more separate appeals and the delay occurred on account of confusion arising in respect of number of appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as also noticed that the shortages of Yo Frooti was on account of clearances to their own unit in the same premises i.e. from Yo Frooti Unit to Agro Unit and there was surplus of modvat inputs in the premises of other unit(s). Similarly in respect of shortages found in other two units surplus materials were found in the same premises but in the premises of the third registered unit. Thus, overall there was no shortage or excess. 3.2 It was further found that the Yo Frooti unit had procured capital goods for the manufacture of finished goods, namely, 'Bailley Aqua Mineral Water' on 19/03/97. However, they had declared that the actual use was for packing of Yo Frooti which was exempt from duty. Further, there was no manufacture of mineral ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s imposed equivalent amount of penalty on each of the unit. In respect of Yo Frooti unit, in addition, he has denied modvat credit of Rs.23,91,513/-, on capital goods which was used in the manufacture of completely exempted products. He has also confiscated the goods, which were found in excess in the other premises, which were released on provisional basis and in lieu of confiscation, imposed a penalty of Rs.30 lakhs. Hence, the appellants are before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the goods, which were seized and provisionally released, have been subsequently cleared on payment of appropriate duty. He submits that since all the three units operated from same premises, even though there was separate Central Excise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to evade payment of duty. Inasmuch as the goods found short in one part of the premises were found in excess in other part of the same premises, we are of the view that, at the stay stage where the prima facie view has to be taken, there is no need to put the appellants to terms in respect of shortage of goods which were found excess elsewhere in the same premises. However, in respect of capital goods, the situation is slightly different. From the records of the case it is seen that at the time of receipt of the capital goods, the product Yo Frooti was completely exempt from duty and Yo Frooti became dutiable only after a gap of few months. This Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd., reported in 2003 (155) ELT 481 has held that....