Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Jaipur vs M/S. Karnawat International Pvt. Ltd on 25 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 217/2012-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 149(CB)CE/JPR-ll/2011 Dated 26.07.2011 passed by CCE, Jaipur]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CCE, Jaipur Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Karnawat International Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Appearance:
Shri M.S.Negi, AR for the Appellants Ms. R. Arora, Advocate for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 25.03.2014 FINAL ORDER NO._ 51204 /2014_ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri M.S.Negi, learned AR appearing for the revenue and Ms. R. Arora, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
2. As per facts on record the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Marble Slabs. The Anti-Evasion officers visited the appellant factory from 01.08.2008 to 03.08.2008 and detected stock of 1105.925 Sqr. Mtr. Of Marble Slabs, which were not accounted for in their daily stock account register. The same was seized by officers.
3. On the above basis proceedings were initiated for confiscation the excess found seized Marble Slabs by way was show cause notice dated 30.01.2009. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the Additional Commissioner vide which he confiscated the same with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Further, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules and Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Hence, the present appeal by the revenue.
5. I find that the appellant authority has relied upon and identical decision of the Tribunal passed in the case of Eurasia Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur Vs. CCE, Jaipur-l final order No. 136/2011-SM (B) dated 25.02.2011. In the said decision, an identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunal decision and the verdict was passed in favour of the assessee. Apart from the above, the appellant authority has also found that that the seizure was effected under Rules 24, which relates to the seizure of the goods on which duty has not been paid. Inasmuch as the seized goods were still within the factory premises, there was no requirement of duty payment. As such, seizure under Rule 24 and the consequent confiscation was not call for.
6. Apart from the above, the appellant authority also observed that there was no evidence to show that the goods were not entered in the records with an malafide motive of clandestine removal. Similarly, invocation of provision of section 117 of the Customs Act for imposition of penalty stand rightly held to be not applicable by the appellant authority. For all the reasons recorded above, I find no infirmity in the views of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, Revenue appeal is rejected.
(Pronounce in the open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
2