2014 (4) TMI 295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of processed MMF valued at Rs.4,68,951/- were manufactured and stored in their factory without accounting for in their books of accounts and the same were intended for being cleared clandestinely. Therefore the same were seized and handed over to the appellants for safe custody. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued and the same was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No.45/OA/ADJ/2003 JC, dt.08.08.2003. Being aggrieved with the said OIO, the appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal). The Commissioner (Appeal) vide Order-in-Appeal No.RKS/137 to 139/Vapi/2004 dt.16.03.04 confirmed the confiscation, imposition of redemption fine and upheld the penalty on the appellants. Further the appellants filed an appeal before The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the entire case records and submit that the case made out by the authorities is totally wrong and the issue involved in this case is only in support of seizure and confiscation of goods which has been done by DGCEI vide their letter dt.31.10.2002. It is his submission that the DGCEI vide Panchnama dt.08.10.2010 has correctly worked out the details of availability of the stock with the appellants, held as 6254.40 LMtrs weighing appprox.1751.200 kgs. This weight was confirmed based upon the packing slips, supratnama and Excise invoice figures. It is his submission that both the lower authorities have confiscated this quantity of the fabrics on the ground that these goods were non-Excise duty paid and liable for confiscation. It is his submis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t and transport companys LRs indicating the transportation of said quantity of the processed MMF fabrics to the appellants factory which was an EOU at that time. Further, I find that the said goods were received in the appellants EOU and declared to the jurisdictional authorities i.e. Inspector of Customs and Central Excise, as per the requirement of law. It is also seen that the said goods were recorded in the register maintained by the appellant during the period when they were functioning as EOU. It is also seen that the appellant had sought de-bonding of the EOU unit, which was permitted, subject to discharge of duty liability on the finished goods as well as the material lying in stock in the appellants EOU. Based upon such directi....