TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d M/s. Maharaja Soaps Industry Pvt. Ltd. Further, the Commissioner (A) has reduced the redemption fine on M/s. Harita Transport and also reduced the penalty on the Proprietor of the transport company to Rs. 5,000/-. Since all the three appeals are interconnected and therefore, all the three appeals are being taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of all the three appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Appellant Penalty Redemption Fine E/21737/2017 M/s. Maharaja Industries Rs.88,669/- Rs.1,75,000/- E/21738/2017 M/s. Harita Transport Rs.5,000/- Rs.50,000/- E/21739/2017 M/s. Maharaja Soaps Industry Pvt Ltd Rs.19,017/- Rs.65,000/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able in respect of the goods loaded on the vehicle. Hence, both the vehicle and goods were seized with a reasonable belief that M/s. Maharaja Soaps Industry Pvt Ltd. had manufactured the finished goods and removed the same without raising invoices and without payment of appropriate duty and the goods and truck are liable for confiscation. Further, the allegation against Mr. M. E. Ravi Raja, Proprietor of M/s. Harita Transport is that he has transported the offending excisable goods from the premises of M/s. Maharaja Soaps Industry Pvt Ltd to the factory of M/s. Maharaja Industries without any valid document thereby contravening the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules made thereunder and the said vehicle is liable for confiscation. Af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etor of M/s. Harita Transport. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of M/s. Maharaja Industries and seized various documents and CPU from the office premises and also seized stock of goods in the factory vide Mahazar dated 29.3.2011. He further submitted that in terms of Section 4(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 4, Rule 5 and Rule 8 of Central Excise Act, 2002, excise duty is payable on removal of goods from the place of remo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., on the basis of hearsay evidence, the contravention of law cannot be presumed and confiscation of goods is not permissible. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: • Raj Mohammed Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra: 2011 (274) ELT 350 (Bom.) • Dilip Kumar vs. CC, Lucknow: 2008 (222) ELT 526 (T) 4.1 Further, the learned counsel also explained the reason for not updating the RG-1 during the period from 8.3.2011 to 29.3.2011 and submitted that one Shri Sashikumar aged about 70 years who is maintaining Central Excise records pertaining to both the units met with an accident and suffered fracture of his legs and was unable to attend the factory. The daily stock account, draft ER1 Returns and othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Maharaja Soaps Pvt Ltd is concerned that they have cleared the goods without payment of duty, the detergent cake and detergent powder and classifiable under CTH 3401 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 are covered by assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Goods are also covered by Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 / Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011. Annexure - II to Mahazar shows that detergent cake and detergent powder were admittedly in packed condition and in terms of Rule 6 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, each package should contain a declaration of the name and address of the manufacturer and packer, the common or ge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., I find that the goods which were loaded in the truck parked inside the premises of the appellant had not been removed from the factory and in the absence of removal of goods from the factory the question of payment of duty or issue of invoice does not arise. Further, the reasons given by the appellant for not updating the daily stock account on account of the accident of Mr. Shashikumar who was maintaining the record was not verified by the Department. Further, it is a settled law that power of confiscation does not extend to goods still inside the factory premises and not cleared without payment of duty and the various case laws relied upon by the appellant cited supra clearly held that confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty....