Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Lucknow vs Shri Yogesh Kumar, Accountant on 28 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 28.03.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal Nos. E/761-763/2008 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos.173-175/LKO/2007, dated 20.11.2007, passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Lucknow]
C.C.E., Lucknow Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Star Steels
Shri Mohd. Yousuf, Partner
Shri Yogesh Kumar, Accountant Respondents
Appearance Shri BB Sharma, DR - for the appellants Shri RS Sharma, Advocate - for the respondents CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order Nos.51372-51374, dated 28.03.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present three appeals.
2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of MS bars, ingots, etc. and their factory was visited by Central Excise officers on 28.09.2004, who conducted various checks and verifications and detected alleged excess stock of raw-materials as also final products. Proceedings were initiated against the respondents, which culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confiscating the excess found goods with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine as also imposing penalties upon the respondents. However, on appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order on the ground that there is no actual weighment and the entire excesses were recorded on the basis of eye estimation. He also observed that there was no evidence of the fact that such excess found goods were not recorded in the statutory record with any mala fide intention to remove the same in clandestinely manner. Accordingly, he set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed upon all the respondents.
Hence, the present appeals by the Revenue.
3. After carefully going through the impugned order, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation of excess found goods by observing that there is no evidence on record to show that the same were meant for clandestine removal. In the absence of any such evidence on the finding of the original adjudicating authority, he held that the confiscation of the same was not appropriate by following the Tribunals decision in the case of Bhilai Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2000 (125) ELT 781] and many other.
4. Revenue in their Memo of Appeal have not produced any evidence to show that the said goods were either in the process of being removed clandestinely or were not recorded in the statutory records with mala fide intention. In the absence of the same, I find no justification for confiscation of the same, as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -3-