Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Whale Stationery Products Ltd. vs C.C.E., Meerut on 10 May, 2001
ORDER
S.S. Kang
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of stencil paper and carbon paper. The appellants started production of their goods in October, 97 and their factory (sic) visited by the excise officials on 29.1.98 and during the visit, 542 folders of stencil paper, 100 reams of typing carbon paper and 36 reams of pencil carbon paper total valued at Rs. 71,820.00, were found in the factory unaccounted in their statutory record. The goods were taken into possession. Show cause notice was issued and the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods and gave option to the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25,000.00 and personal penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 was also imposed. The appellants filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of confiscation and, however, reduced the redemption fine and penalty of Rs. 15,000.00 each.
3. Ld. C.A., appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the goods, in question, are the rejected goods as the appellants produced the goods during trial production of stencil paper & carbon paper. He submits that this fact was duly noted int he seizure memo prepared at the time of visit of the factory by the excise officials. Shri Ashok Singh, Manager (Works) also explained in his statement that the goods, in question , are the rejected goods. He, further, submits that the appellants were availing the benefit of notification 1/93 and their total clearance at the time of visit by the excise officials, (sic) was /Rs. 1,37.220.00 and Rs. 29 lakh, which is much below the limit prescribed under the small scale exemption notification. He, therefore, submits that as the goods were not marketable, the impugned order be set aside.
4. Heard ld. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
5. In this case the duty is being demanded on stencil paper, typing carbon and pencil carbon, which are found in the factory unaccounted in the statutory record. the recovery memo prepared at the time of visit by the excise officials, describes these goods as rejected (sic). The statement of Sh. Ashok Singh also shows that the goods are rejected goods (sic) In reply to show cause notice, the appellants took a specific plea that the goods are rejected and, therefore, are not marketable. This plea, taken by the appellants in reply to show cause notice was not considered by the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority. As the documents prepared at the time of visit of the factory show that the goods are rejected goods, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in Court).