TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facture and clearance of the excisable goods viz., Enameled Copper Winding Wires, classifiable under Sub Heading No. 8544.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. On 08.09.2003 the Central Excise Officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) carried out search at the factory premises of the appellant company. No discrepancy was found on stock verification. The said officers seized the production reports and a personal diary of Mr. K.S. Tiwari, Production Manager of the appellant company. On the same day, the said officers also carried out search at the dealers premises namely M/s. A.R. Enterprises and at the residence of its Proprietor Shri Rajesh Kantawala, to whom the appellant used to sell the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erprises and the appellant company proposing for confiscation of the goods, seized on 08.12.2013 at the premises of the dealer. It has also proposed to impose penalty on the dealer and the appellant company. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the seized goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1,26,000.00 on the dealer and also imposed penalty of Rs. 74,000.00 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the dealer. No penalty was imposed on the appellant company. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order. Hence, the dealer M/s. A.R. Enterprises filed another appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri J.C. Patel, the Learned Advocate is appearing on behalf of all the appellants except the dealer. Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s etc. It is also submitted that during the visit to the factory, by the Central Excise Officers, no excess/shortage of raw materials or finished goods was found. In this context, he relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal and High Court. The demand of Rs. 5,75,062.00 is also on the basis of the same diary. In this context, the Learned Advocate submits that the quantities reflected in the said diary are corroborating with R.G.I./Production register and cleared on payment of duty under Central Excise Invoices. He drew the attention of the Bench, the R.G.I./Production register. It is submitted that both the authorities had not examined this issue. It is also submitted that cross examination of Shri K.S. Tiwari was not allowed. 8.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grade, size as mentioned in the production slip. We find that it is evident from the record that the appellant company cleared the goods, mix size, medium grade as mentioned in the invoices and cartoons, which were arising after the production stage. The material available on record would show that the goods cleared second quality. Thus, the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that these goods are not second quality is without any basis and the demand of duty is not proper. 10. The demand of duty of Rs. 75,506.21 is in respect of the goods seized from the residence and godown of the dealer, the Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants contended that the said quantities were cleared under the cover of the Central Excise Invoices an....