2017 (12) TMI 492

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the sides. 2. These appeals are filed against order-in-appeal No.VAP-EXCUS-000-APP-83-84-14-15 passed by the Central Excise Commissioner (Appeals) Vapi. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminum Conductors falling under Chapter 76 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of surprise visit to their unit on 24.12.2012, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resent appeals. 3. The Ld. Chartered Accountant Shri Vipul Khandhar, for the appellant submitted that explaining the excess stock of 81,250/- Kgs of Aluminum Scrap, General Manager Sh. K.G. Unnikrishnan of the Appellant in his statement recorded on 30.04.2013, stated that even though the scrap which generated on day to day basis, and not entered in the RG-1 register on the same day; but the it wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). 6. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 7. I find that the short issue involved in the present case is whether excess aluminum scrap of 81,250 Kgs found in the factory premises of the appellant on 24.12.2012 is liable for confiscation and consequently under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and al....