2007 (5) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igation on 24-9-01 were not really finished goods but under work-in-progress, for which the allegation of clandestine removal is not sustainable. Similarly, the raw materials found to be short in the course of investigation was only due to bad handling by workmen. Therefore, the order of confiscation with option for release of the goods depositing redemption fine of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty-five....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... care and caution. If such factor is taken into consideration, the Appellant shall not be deterrently dealt when there was no action by the Department to prove that the finished goods and the inputs were out of the campus/factory of the Appellant. 3. Learned JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that there was a reckless behaviour on the part of the Appellant when it was found by the Departme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecord. 5. The allegation made by Revenue was on physical examination during course of inventory taken on 24-9-2001. The excess and deficiency in the finished goods as well as the inputs remain undisputed. However, the learned Commissioner considering the totality of the facts and circumstances came to a finding that the appellant had already deposited the duty on the finished goods and also on ....