Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S F. Tech Engineering Co vs C.C.E. & S.T. Rajkot on 9 May, 2018
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.E/10213-10214/2018-SM [Arising out of OIA-RAJ-EXCUS-000-APP-105-106-2017-18 dated 01.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Rajkot] M/s F. Tech Engineering Co. Appellant Jignesh M. Pambhar Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Rajkot Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Mr. R. Subramanya (Advocate) For Respondent: Mr. S.N. Gohil (A.R.) CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:09.05.2018 Final Order No. A / 10996-10997 /2018 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both the sides.
2. This appeal is filed against OIA-RAJ-EXCUS-000-APP-105-106-2017-18 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Customs and Service Tax-Rajkot.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the officers of the Central Excise department visited the premises of the appellant company on 12.12.2014 and found unaccounted stock of finished goods valued at Rs. 20,84,195/- which was placed under seizure. On adjudication the goods were confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2,57,607/- and penalty of equal amount imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; also personal penalty of Rs. 1.00 Lakh imposed on the Partner, Sh. Jignesh M. Pambhar, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that initially alleging that the appellant are not entitled to avail benefit of Exemption Notification 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, for clearance of submersible pumps only, without motor, a case was booked against them. It is his contention that subsequently, the issue was decided in their favour by adjudicating authority vide Order No. 20/D/2016-17 dated 21.12.2016. Also, the said order was accepted by the department. He has contended that the goods which were placed under seizure by the department were not in the semi-finished stage and accordingly, not entered in the RG-1 register. He submits that even though at the first stage, while submitting their reply to the SCN, they have raised this issue, but the same was not examined and the goods were directed to be confiscated. In support of the fact that the goods were lying in semi-finished condition, the appellant had produced a Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 21.03.2018 along with the photographs of the goods under seizure. He has vehemently argued that further processes like assembly, testing and trial run, marking the name and number plate etc. were yet to be fixed; also packing of the goods with handling instructions to be enclosed with the said goods. It is his contention that in any case these semi-finished goods cannot be declared as finished goods and hence seizure and confiscation of the same is bad in law. In support, he has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Moharika Metals & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE 2015 (330) ELT 325 (Tri. Amd.).
5. Per contra, Ld. AR for the Revenue, vehemently argued that during course of punchnama and also in the statement, nowhere the issue of semi-finished nature of the goods have been raised by the appellant. It is his contention that since they have admitted that these goods were finished goods and consequently the same were placed under seizure. It is his contention that raising this issue at this stage should not be accepted and the authorities below had rightly directed confiscation of the goods.
6. Heard both the sides and perused the records.
7. I find that on the day of visit of the officers to the factory of the appellant, unaccounted goods were found lying in the premises of the appellant. It is the contention of the appellant that the said goods were in semi-finished condition. However, no evidences were produced even though in the reply such a plea was taken by the appellant. It is the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant that the said goods are still lying in the factory premises and can be subjected to verification. In support of his contention that the goods are in semi-finished condition, Chartered Engineer Certificate is placed on record. Considering the fact that, no finding has been recorded by the adjudicating authority, even though in their defence, the appellant has vehemently argued about the fact that the goods were semi-finished condition, in my opinion, on the face of the Chartered Engineers Certificate and also since the goods are still lying in the factory premises, the matter is to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify the fact whether the goods are in semi-finished condition or in finished condition, in the interest of justice. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. All issues are kept open. Needless to mention a reasonable opportunity of hearing be allowed to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) Neha 4 | Page E/10213-10214/2018-SM