TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory was visited by the officers on 18-3-2009, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result quantity of 10,001 pieces of glass Refills silver coated for vacuum flasks was found over and above the recorded book balance. Shri Arun Kumar Saxena, authorized representative admitted above excess, involving duty of Rs. 20,025/-. The same were put under seizure and handed over to the appellant under a supurdiginana. 3. On the above basis proceedings were initiated proposing confistication of the goods as also for imposition of penalty. The original adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not under dispute is that the department also could not succeed in bringing any evidence on record to substantiate the charge of intention to remove the goods clandestinely. It is another accepted and proved fact that the goods were not liable to duty as the consolidated clearances on the date of visit were within the exemption limit. The visiting officers have also failed to prove the alleged intention to remove the goods clandestinely by any tangible evidence. I observe that the Hon'ble Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Bhillai Conductors Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (3-Member Bench)], which has also been followed in various other pronouncements has settled the issue and had become the law of the land. It has been held there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing the principles of judicial discipline, I find that the confiscation of unaccounted goods lying within the factory premises when the goods were not liable to duty and when no attempt was noticed to have been made for its clandestine removal, is not warranted, and accordingly the order of confiscation of seized goods available in factory is not maintainable, and thus liable to be set aside. Since the goods are not liable to confiscation, there is no requirement of imposing redemption fine." 6. Hence, the present appeal by Revenue. 7. On going through the memo of appeal and the grounds raised by the Revenue, I find that they have referred to the provisions of Rule 25(1)(b) and have submitted that the same does not require a....