2013 (5) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....85. The appellant is registered with central excise department to manufacture above said excisable goods. The appellant is also availing SSI exemption during the year 2010-11. On the basis of an intelligence, Central Excise, Preventive, Officers visited the unit of the Appellant on 18.08.2010 and inquiry made with the driver of one truck No. GJ 04U 7039 regarding the unloading of 4 old and used plates from the said truck in the premises of the Appellant's unit ad a search on the same day was also carried out at the said premises. The invoice No. 665 dated 17.08.2010 issued by M/s. Shree Ram Steel and Rolling Inds., Alang, Bhavnagar was issued in favour of M/s. Satluj Steel Inds. Pvt. Ltd. There was no separate invoice regarding the unloadin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty of Rs.24,772/- imposed under the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 against the assessee and imposed penalty of Rs.56,650/- under the Rule 25 of Central Excise Ru1es, 2002. 3. Aggrieved by such an order of adjudicating authority, appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority has held that there is no liability to discharge the duty on the said steel plates which were received by the appellant herein and cleared by unit in Alang Ship Yard Ltd., as duty liability was discharged by coming to a conclusion he has set aside the penalty and interest thereof against which Revenue is not in appeal but he has upheld the confiscation of the sai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is that goods are liable for confiscation under the provision of Rule 25, I find that the goods which are liable for confiscation and contemplated in provisions of Rule 25 are the finished excisable goods from manufacturer, or warehouser or registered dealer.   9. I find that there is no dispute that whatever is received is a raw material for consumption by the appellant in his factory premises and it is duty paid. The confiscation thereof under provisions of Rule 25 is not in consonance of law as has been settled by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. I may, with respect, reproduce the relevant paragraph 3. On our repeated asking the learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It is further seen that the lower authorities have confiscated under-processed goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 6 lakhs. The appellants have contested that there is no provision for confiscation of raw materials or semi-finished goods and Rule 173Q/Rule 25 provides for confiscation of finished goods only. For the above proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Birla Yamaha Works v. C.C.E., Meerut reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 194 (Tri-Del.). We agree with the learned Advocate that Rule 25, under which the semi-finished processed goods has been confiscated is applicable only to finished excisable goods. As such, we set aside the confiscat....