TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 986
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ariff. Their factory premises was visited by the jurisdictional Central Excise officers on 23-8-2003 and in course of stock taking of the finished goods, 34.079 MT of writing and printing paper valued at Rs. 6,47,917/- was found in excess of the balance recorded in the RG I register. This paper was in fully finished and ready to dispatch condition. The goods were placed under seizure on reasonable belief that same are liable for confiscation under the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On stock taking of inputs, some shortages were detected in stock of certain Cenvat credit availed inputs in respect of which the Cenvat credit involved was Rs. 59,839/-. 1.2 On scrutiny of the records maintained by the unit, it was f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was imposed on Shri Amit Kumar under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 1.4 On appeal being filed before Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant company and the authorised signatories, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 190-CE/MRT-II/05, dated 12-8-2005 dismissed the appeals against which these three appeals have been filed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Shri R. Tyagi, CA and Shri Hemant Bajaj, advocate, the learned counsels for the appellants, pleaded that alleged excess stock of printing and writing papers weighing 34.079 MT not recorded in the RG I register at the time of officers' visit to the factory, is not liable for confiscation, as the same was going to be entered in RG I register, that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pute the fact of non-accountal of this stock of writing and printing paper which represents more than one day's production. The only explanation given by the appellant is that there was no intention on their part to clear the excess stock without payment of duty. In our view, this explanation is not acceptable, as in terms of the provisions of Rule 25(1)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, penalty under this Rule is attracted for non-accountal of any excisable goods produced or manufactured by an assessee and in this regard mens rea is not required to be established. Therefore, the confiscation of the goods along with the option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty on appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....received and issued for manufacture, the quantity stored in or released from the tanks is determined only by dip reading. Moreover, the appellants have not produced any evidence in support of their contention that volume and density of the caustic soda lye changes drastically with temperature and that it is highly volatile liquid. Moreover, the shortage of 24.88 MTs cannot be accounted for on account of mistake in dip reading. Therefore, Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 59,839/- is upheld. 7. As regards the duty demand of Rs. 2,45,215/-, the same is for the period from August, 2001 to September, 2003 and the basis of this demand is that in respect of clearances of finished goods to depot, the assessee did not include the freight charges,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal duty demand of Rs. 2,45,215/-, only duty demand for the period from 14-5-2003 onwards is upheld and balance amount of duty demand for the period from August, 2001 to 13-5-2003 is set aside. 8. The penalty under Section 11AC would be imposable only to the extent the Cenvat credit demand and the duty demand have been upheld. 9. Thus so far as the appeal filed by the main appellant M/s. Shree Shyam Pulp and Board Mills Ltd. is concerned, the same is partially allowed. 10. As regards the appeals filed by Shri R.P. Gupta and Shri Amit Kumar, authorised signatories of the appellant company, same has been imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Under this Rule, penalty is imposable on the persons who a....