2018 (8) TMI 551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d vide order dated 20.03.2013 on following questions of law:- (1)Whether the Tribunal is justified in ignoring the explanation submitted by the appellant that mistake was on the part of supplier of cartons in delivering the cartons belong to M/s Sadhvi Gramodyod Samita, Umran, Kanpur Dehat and M/s Manoj Gupta & Co., Chiraura, Kanpur Dehat in the factory premises of the party-appellant? (2)Whether the Tribunal is justified in ignoring the explanation f the appellant that mistake n part of illiterate labours was in packing the party products in the same cartons of the aforesaid manufactures? (3)Whether the Tribunal is justified in reversing the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals)? 3. The appellant-assessee was holding Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s Standard Sufactants Ltd., Rania, Kanpur Dehat found in excess as compared to the recorded balance in the Daily Stock Register (Total= 5436) i.e. the said goods were not accounted for in teh records maintained by them with an intent to remove the same clandestinely totally valued at Rs. 2682750.00 (MRP) (Assessable Value= 1743788.00) leviable to Central Excise duty of Rs. 279006.00 @ 16% Adv. seized by the officers should not be confiscated under the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. (ii) Penalty should not be imposed on them under the provision of rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. The SCN was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Devision-II, Kanpur vide order dated 28.11.2005. Aggr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. The Tribunal vide impugned order has held that out of 5436 cartons of Detergent cake, only 65 cartons of Detergent carried brand name of the respondent-assessee. There was no explanation whatsoever for not accounting huge amount of goods manufactured by the respondent-assessee. 10. It was further held that non accounting of such huge quantity of goods in the statutory records of the appellant-assessee was not justified. The obligation of the manufacturing to account the goods manufactured by them on day to day basis is a strict obligation and failure to do so clearly attracts the provision of Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules 2002. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the Tribunal held that the goods wer....