Excise Appeal Nos. 1876 of 2008 - Ex (SM) and 1907 of 2008 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 62/CE/LKO/2008 dated 29.4.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Lucknow]. Case: Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Shubh Metals. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Excise Appeal Nos. 1876 of 2008 - Ex (SM) and 1907 of 2008 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 62/CE/LKO/2008 dated 29.4.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Lucknow] |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.K. Dhawan, A.R. and For Respondents: Sukriti Das, Advocate |
| Judges | Ashok Jindal, Member (J) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 11AC, 6 |
| Judgement Date | December 22, 2014 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Ashok Jindal, Member (J), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
Both the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeals against the impugned order.
-
Brief facts of the case are that on 5.11.2004, a search was conducted in the factory premises of the assessee. During the course of search, it was found that there was shortage of certain raw materials and the MS ingot is in excess as per the records maintained by them. Thereafter a panchnama was drawn regarding the shortage of raw material and excess of finished goods. After investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee for violation of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 to render the goods liable for confiscation and consequently for imposition of penalty. Show cause notice was adjudicated. The adjudicating authority confirmed the confiscation of raw materials and finished goods, consequently imposed redemption fine of Rs. 13,80,000/- and penalty of Rs. 6,74,953/-. The said order was challenged by the assessee before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who held that finished goods are not liable for confiscation but the shortage of raw materials were held to be liable for confiscation. Therefore, he reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) and penalty to Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) against the said order. Revenue is in appeal for enhancement of the redemption fine and penalty and for upholding the charges dropped by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee is in appeal against the confirmation, the charge of confiscation of the goods, confiscation of raw material, consequential imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the assessee.
-
Heard both sides and perused the records.
-
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that in the show cause notice, it is alleged that the assessee is not maintaining the records as per Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, consequently Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was invoked and redemption fine and penalty were confirmed against the assessee. She drew my attention to the show cause notice and said that as per Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the charge for confiscation and imposition of penalty require the ingredient of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for holding confiscation of goods and for imposition of penalty under Rule 25. In this case, the charge under section 11AC of the Act has not been invoked against the assessee...
To continue reading
Request your trial