2017 (1) TMI 1126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt on 28.06.2012, their registered office, residence of M.D. and other registered office on the same day. During the search conducted at factory they found certain raw materials and certain semi finished goods and finished goods which were not accounted for in the books of account. On the reasonable belief that they were liable for confiscation, the said goods valued at Rs. 70,11,835/- were seized through "Panchnama" dated 28.06.2012. Subsequently, the said goods were provisionally released to the appellant on execution of required bond supported by bank guarantee for Rs. 17,53,000/-. The said goods were released on 16.07.2012. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the last entry in the daily stock account register was recorded on 07....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d for confiscation of the said goods valued at Rs. 70,11,835/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under said Rule 25 and another penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He imposed fine of Rs. 10 lakhs in lieu of confiscation. He further ordered for encashment of bank guarantee for Rs. 17,53,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). They put forth same argument before the Commissioner (Appeals). In addition, they contended that the encashment of bank guarantee was not liable for realization of amounts and also contended that penalties were not liable for imposition in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Hon'ble High Court at Delhi in the case of Commissioner of C.E.x, Delhi-II vs Ganpati Rollings Pvt- Ltd. reported at 2016(338) 587 (Del.). 4, Learned DVR, has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records and on going through the ruling by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-II vs Ganpati Rolfings Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2016(338) 587 (Del.) stated above I find that the impugned show cause notice is issued without any demand of duty. Since there was no demand of duty, invocation of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 did not arise. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said ruling has held that in the appeal before the said Ho....