TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r order for release of goods on payment of redemption fine is tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of H.R. Strips falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Central Excise Preventive Officers, Raipur visited the factory premises on 24.12.2011 and asked to Shri P.G. Saha, Site Incharge and authorized signatory for stock declaration. Shri P.G. Saha vide letter dated 24.12.2011 declared the stock position of raw material and finished goods as on 24.12.2011. In order to ascertain the correctness of stock, the officers conducted the physical verification of the stock of both the finished goods and the raw material lying the factory pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The SCN was adjudicated on contest confirming the proposed confiscation of 24.454 MT of billets valued at Rs. 7,75,192/- and 33.027 MT of HR strips valued at Rs. 11,88,972/- seized on the date of inspection with an option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 4,91,041/-. Further, penalty of Rs. Two lakh was imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have observed the modus operandi of the appellant as regards the receipt and issue of raw material, recording of production and removal of finished goods as under: - i) The purchased quantity received in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f eye estimation and not on actual weighment. It was also noticed that although facility of weighbridge was available in the factory premises but the visiting officers did not utilised the said facility and conducted the stock taking on eye estimation basis. The appellant admitted that mere excess in the quantity of finished goods and raw material does not call for confiscation and imposition of penalty. It was further observed that raw material / finished goods cannot be confiscated which is not properly accounted for. Accordingly, he held that confiscation of 24.454 MT of billets under Rule 25 is not - tenable and accordingly set aside. He have held that confiscation of the finished goods which were released on payment of redemption fine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order. 9. Having considered rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I find that no actual weighment of the stock of raw materials and finished goods was made. Thus, the whole exercise was done by way of eye estimation as is evident from. Under such circumstances and method of stock verification, there is bound to be discrepancies. Further, I find that so far billets are concerned there was difference of about 10% or 12% and the same already stands deleted by Commissioner (Appeals). So far as stock of finished HR strips is concerned, the difference is of 33 MT against the recorded balance of 126.440 MT. Thus, there is difference of little more than 20%. I hold that in the case of eye estimation, which is adm....