2018 (3) TMI 403

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.6.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of TMT bars and M.S. billets, falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On an information that the appellant is engaged ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ein excess found 184.431 TMT bars valued at Rs. 62,70,654/- was confiscated under Rule 25 ibid, with the option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. Further, the adjudicating authority has also imposed penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Rules. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 28.6.2016 ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in the daily production register. It is his further submission that since the goods were available within the factory, the allegation cannot be levelled against the appellant that the goods were made for clandestine removal. Therefore, he submits that confiscation of TMT bars, imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant is not proper and justified. 4. On the other hand, the ld....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry register, even though the Central Excise officers visited the factory on 24.1.2013. Thus, the provisions of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 is violated/contravened by the appellant and as such, the excess found stock was liable for confiscation. Therefore, so far as confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalties are concerned, I am in agreement with both the authori....