Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Prabhat Zard Factory (India) Pvt. ... vs Cce, Noida on 30 July, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI-110066
COURT NO. II
Central Excise Appeal No. 1083/2010-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 312-313/CE/APPL/NOIDA/09 dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Noida]
Date of Hearing/decision: 30th July, 2012
M/s. Prabhat Zard Factory (India) Pvt. Ltd., Appellant
Vs.
CCE, NOIDA Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri S.D. Guar,Consultant Present for the Respondent : Ms. Shweta Bector, D.R. Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member;
FINAL ORDER NO. ________________ Per D.N. Panda:
Shri Guar, learned Consultant says that discrepancy in the finished goods and packing material found was not real discrepancy but improperly accounted inventories done during investigation. The appellant has already suffered duty of Rs. 30,591/- and redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the seized goods as well as Rs. 5,000/- on packing material. So also, there was penalty of Rs. 30,591/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed since there was no deliberate intention to cause loss of Revenue.
2. Learned D.R. on the other hand, submits that the orders of the authorities below was correctly passed when the goods was manufactured in unregistered premises.
3. Heard both sides and perused the record.
4. What learned D.R. says that remained undisputed and, that is coming out of discussion and finding part of adjudication order. When the investigation was extended to different premises it was found that adjacent building was divided by a wall and gate for accessibility to each other. When it was found that appellant was manufacturing the impugned goods without being accounted for in unregistered premises that made the appellant liable to the duty.
5. Not only the stock discrepancy was found but also modus operandi followed as above has rightly resulted in duty demand which is hereby confirmed. So far as redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the seized goods is concerned, it appears to be disproportionate when the value of goods was Rs. 45,000/-. Therefore, that is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- only.
6. So far as packing material is concerned, redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/- thereon need not be touched because such unaccounted goods becomes instrumentality to cause loss of Revenue. Therefore, that redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/- is confirmed.
7. So far as penalty of Rs. 30,591/- is concerned, looking to the manner of causing prejudice to Revenue by the appellant waiver thereof is unwarranted. If value of the goods is looked into and that has been made to suffer duty and redemption fine, it would be reasonable to reduce the penalty to Rs. 10,000/-. Appeal is partly allowed. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK 3 E/1083/2010-SM