TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/03/2004 was issued to all the respondents. The said Show Cause Notice included proposals for confiscation of 59.701 MT of M. S. Ingots valued at Rs. 6,56,711/-, 8040 kgs. of Poster Media Paper valued at Rs. 1,04,520/-, 3426 Sq. Mtrs. of finished/processed fabrics valued at Rs. 54,816/- & 179794.9 Mtrs. of Grey Fabrics valued at Rs. 19,77,743/- which were seized at the manufacturing premises of respondents M/s L. Kant Paper Mills Ltd. Further, there were proposals as follows:- "3. 250 bales containing 1316pcs. of processed fabrics in bales totally valued at Rs. 23,01,684/- and 1009 lumps of processed fabrics totally valued at Rs. 16,98,600/- seized at the trading premises of M/s Om Textiles & M/s Sagar Trading situated at 55/67 B Raja Market, Kahu Kothi, Kanpur should not be confiscated under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,35,888/- BED & Rs. 33,972/-AED on 1009 lumps of processed fabric seized at these premises and Central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,84,135/- BED & Rs. 46,034/- AED on 250 bales containing 1316 pcs. of processed fabrics seized at the above premises should not be demanded and recovered from M/s L. Kant P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....brics valued at Rs. 23,01,684/- & 1009 lumps of Processed Fabrics valued at Rs. 16,98,600/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, I given an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4,60,000/- & Rs. 3,40,000/- respectively. b) Further I also confirm the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,35,888/- BED + Rs. 33,972/-AED on 1009 lumps of Processed Fabrics & Rs. 1,84,135/- BED + Rs. 46,034/- AED on 250 bales of Processed Fabrics 9Total duty Rs. 4,00,029/-) on M/s L. Kant Paper Mills Ltd., and the same is to be recovered from them under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4)a) I confiscate the 120 lumps of Processed Fabrics valued at Rs. 1,79,566/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption Fine of Rs. 36,000/-. b) Further, I also confirm the demand of duty Rs. 14,365/- BED + Rs. 3,591/- AED (total Rs. 17,956/-) on M/s L. Kant Paper Mills. Ltd. and the same is to be recovered from them under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5) I confiscate the 81 bales of Grey Fabrics valued at Rs. 7,13,840/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with an option ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved upon the party on 24/03/2004 and O-I-O was passed on 20/02/2006 after a lapse of more than 2 years of the service of the Show Cause Notice. In such a large space of 2 years, the main party M/s L. Kant Paper Mills Ltd., Kanpur (Dehat) did not care to reply the notice. The party neither submitted the defence reply nor attended the personal hearing despite repeated reminders as is evident by O-I-O No. 05/JC/2006 dated 20/02/2006. This aspect has been completely overlooked in the appeal proceedings while making the aforesaid observation. 2. Confiscation of Grey Fabrics in the factory premises was vacated in the appeal proceedings on the grounds that the same was accounted in the RG 23 A Part-I. At this juncture it is important to add that the discrepancy in the stock of the raw material was observed on the day of search i.e. 25/09/2003 and no explanation was furnished with respect of the said stock. The party failed to submit any explanation for the unaccounted stock till 12/10/2003 ever after 18 days of search. The said RG 23 A part-I was submitted on 13/10/2003 and the delay in submission of the said register was not explained and it appears that the same remained unexplained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods were not supported by any duty paying documents and were manufactured by M/s L. Kant Paper Mills Ltd., Kanpur. Hence the said stocks were rightly confiscated in the O-I-O. Such evidences were not properly considered in the appeal proceedings while vacating the confiscation and dropping the demand pertaining to such goods. 4. The redemption fine was drastically reduced in respect of the goods seized at the factory premises/transporters premises. In this context it is added that the evidences as mentioned above were not properly considered during the appeal proceedings. 5. Confiscation of Rs. 7,00,000/- seized from the premises of Shri Anil Agarwal, was vacated during the appeal proceedings citing reason of absence of the evidence that the said cash was sale proceeds of clandestinely removed excisable goods. At this juncture it is important to add that the said cash seized from the residence of Shri Anil Agarwal who was also present on the spot and he could not explain the said cash on the spot. Shri Anil Agarwal explained that Rs. 3 lakhs was withdrawn from the bank but it was found that the denomination of notes were different that the one given by the bank. Hence, his ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mere non accountal of goods in RG-1. iii) It is on record that quantity of 179794.9 Mtrs. of Grey Cloth has been ascertained on the basis of figure provided by the Respondent and no actual verification was done by the investigation. This fact has also been taken note in Adjudication Order, vide Para 4 of O-I-O. 2. Refutation of Ground No. 3 i) In respect of Ground No. 3, it is submitted that Commissioner Appeal has rightly held that Revenue could not correlate the goods with M/s L. Kant Paper Mills. Moreover, Ownership of goods had been admitted by the Revenue by way of provisionally releasing the goods to M/s Om Textiles and M/s Sagar Trading Company. The finding by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in impugned Order at Para 17 & 18 read as under : - "Regarding Confiscation of goods seized at the trading premises/ godown of M/s Sagar Trading and M/s Om Textiles, I observe that after the search operation on 25.09.2003, the appellants have sought provisional release of the seized goods, vide letter dated 13.10.2003 giving details of licit purchase of goods either from M/s L. Kant Paper Mills Ltd. on cover of invoices or from open market supported with the Bills & Ledgers. Subseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal in this regard to avoid litigation and buy peace of mind. 4. Refutation of Ground No.5 of Revenue Appeal i) With regard to the cash recovered from the Premises of M/s Anil Steels there is no attempt on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain its link with the goods alleged to have been 'removed clandestinely'. The link cannot be established on mere assumption and there must be some material on record which is to be ascertained by analyzing the same. As such the Learned Commissioner Appeals has rightly set aside the confiscation. ii) That on the basis of assumption presumption and surmises the alleged cash has been seized and held liable for confiscation by the Adjudicating Authority without discharging the Burdon heavily cast upon the Revenue. 5. Refutation of Ground No. 6 of Revenue Appeal. i) That in absence of any contumacious conduct or deliberate violation of statute the penalty has rightly been set aside by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). ii) Further it is on record that no role of individual has been specified for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. iii) Further when Finished goods and Raw ....