2017 (12) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is a manufacturer of Ferro manganese falling under chapter 72 and also registered under the provisions of the Central Excise Act. There was an inspection in the premises on 23/01/2012, wherein the stock of raw material /finished products was verified. It appeared that a quantity of 78.100 MT of Ferro manganese fines was found in excess in stock than the declared stock of finished goods. Since no records were found relating to the said 78.100 MT of Ferro manganese fines, valued at Rs. 21,08,700/-, being found to be in excess than the declared stock, the same was seized as it appeared to Revenue that the same was manufactured surreptitiously with intent to remove without accounting the same. Further facts, as per the show cause notice dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as work-in-progress was an after-thought and not tenable. Since they have failed to produce any documentary evidence in respect of said work-in-progress goods as well as testing reports as stated in the statement dated 16.7.2012, accordingly, the appellant were required to show cause as to why the said stock of 78.100 MT alleged to be Ferro manganese fines be not confiscated and further why not penalty be imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further allegation in the Show Cause Notice is that appellant had cleared goods on consignment basis and as the goods have been sold at a higher value by the consignment agent resulted in short payment of Rs. 95,083/-. The appellant accepted the short payment of duty and deposited the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant had accepted that the differential duty short paid and had paid the same prior to the issue of show cause notice, the show cause notice on this count is bad and fit to be set aside. 4. Heard learned AR for Revenue who supports the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the whole show cause notice is presumptive. In spite of categorical assertion by the Director of the company in the statement recorded during investigation under section 14 of the act, wherein he categorically stated that the goods detained and seized are work-in-progress and not finished goods, Revenue have failed to test the goods. I find that they have rejected the contention whimsically which is not tenable in the scheme of ....