2017 (1) TMI 1464

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(appellant No. 3) and Shri Anil Kumar Garg, proprietor of Ganesh Cutter (appellant No. 4) against the impugned order dated 1-9-2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1 is registered with the Central Excise Department for manufacture of S.S. Ingots and S.S. Flats, falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The factory of the appellant was visited by the Central Excise officers on 19-11-2005 and during the course of search, they found shortage of 4,510 kgs. of S.S. Ingots as compared to the balance shown in the books of the said appellant. The officers also searched the premises of M/s. Shree Shyam Cutter and M/s. Shree Ganesh Cu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not apply for confiscation of the same and for imposition of penalty; that the appellant No. 2 to 4 were not aware regarding the fact that S.S. Flats recovered from the premises of the cutter were liable for confiscation and thus, no penalty is imposable under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on them. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that since the statement furnished by appellant No. 2 that non-duty paid S.S. Flats seized from the cutters owned by the appellant No. 1, is voluntarily and not retracted, no further evidence is required to prove clandestine removal of such good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the premises of the cutters are not duty paid goods, strengthen the case of Revenue that the S.S. Flats recovered from the premises of cutters were manufactured out of non-duty paid S.S. Ingots removed from the factory of the appellant No. 1. 6.1 Therefore, we are of the view that confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 11,22,979/- and imposition of equal amount of penalty by the authorities below are sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant against the confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalty is dismissed. 6.2 However, considering the value of S.S. Flats seized (Rs. 26,63,500/- & 42,17,500/-) from the premises of cutters and involvement of duty liability (Rs. 4,43,483/- & 6,88,296/- respectivel....