TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 19-12-2007. During course of the search the officers found bulk drugs weighing 800 Kgs of Cefpodoxime Proxetil, 1.1 kgs of Cefrozil and 100 kgs of Cefdinir, in excess of daily stock account of the appellant. The total value of the bulk drugs so found was determined as Rs. 1,43,54,000/-. The officers seized the above quantities under Panchanama dated 19-12-2007. The statements of Shri K.Shiva kanth, Asst.Manager(Stores), Shri V.J. Mone, Vice President(Ann3) and Shri M.Narayana Reddy, Managing Director of the appellant company was recorded. The goods were provisionally released to the appellant on 23-02-2008 on payment of duty the appellant later cleared the said goods. 2. It is the case of the department that during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s contravened the provision of Rule 10 Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of excess goods, as they did not account such finished goods manufactured by them in the statutory daily stock register (RG 1 register). That therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation. He adverted to the copy of RG1 register produced along with the records to explain the following:- The search was conducted on 19-12-2007, on the said day, 400 kgs., of Cefpodoxime Proxetil was manufactured and the same has been entered in the RG1 register. Again on 20-12-2007, 400 kgs of Cefpodoxime Proxetil was manufactured and the same also was entered in the register. He submitted that the bulk drugs are manufactured in batches and only after testing they ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the closing balance of 801 kgs has been bracketed by the department. He argued that the confiscation and imposition of penalties is legal and proper. 5. I have heard both sides. 6. The only issue to be looked into as per the allegation raised in the show cause notice is whether the appellant had duly accounted for the excess finished goods alleged to have been found during the time of search. According to the department, the variation in the actual stock of finished goods and that entered in RG1 register is shown as under: Name of the finished product Stock balance as per GR1 register (in Kgs) Actual physical stock of finished goods available (in Kg) Difference (excess ) (in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t alleges that they found and seized 800 kgs. of Cefpodoxime Proxetil on 19-12-2007 which was not accounted in the RG 1 register, I am not able to understand how the same quantity (of 800 kgs)is seen entered in RG 1 register split up in two days. It is also to be mentioned that the department has made remarks in the end column bracketing the closing figures 201, 401, 601 and 801 kgs. It is stated in the remarks column after the bracket that ' this product seized by DGCEI on 19th for non inclusion in RG 1'. The entries shown in RG-1 register for 19th and 20th and the remarks made by DGCEI does not reconcile with the allegations raised by department. If 200 kgs + 200 Kgs was manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld have removed the goods without payment of duty. In fact, the appellant has paid duty on the goods as per the duty determined. In the case of Quippo energy Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE&ST,Ahmd. -2016(331)ELT-617(Tri.Ahmd) the Tribunal held that if goods are not available, the same cannot be confiscated. In the instant case, the goods were provisionally released and appellant cleared them by paying duty. Therefore, I hold that the confiscation and the imposition of redemption fine is without any legal basis and therefore, liable to be set aside. 10. The statement of Shri Shiva Kanth shows that the appellant was indulging in clandestine removal of goods. This evidence together with the admitted fact that the appellant had not accoun....