ABDUL RAWOOF KHAN AND BROS. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant against the Order -in -Appeal No. 102/2004(T)CE dt. 28/10/2004.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are that Anti Evasion officers detained a motor car carrying handmade biris manufactured by the appellant on the ground that the documents available with the vehicle were not indicating any duty payment on the said biris. Subsequent follow up actions undertaken by the officers resulted in shortage of 1600 Nos. of Writer brand biris and 57,640 Nos. of Vakil brand biris and the duty involved short being Rs. 533/ -. Further the officers searched the residential premises of the partner of the firm and found unaccounted bags containing 2,44,800 Nos. of Writer brand biris and 84 kgs. of tobacco. As the partner could not show any valid document evidencing payment of duty, officers seized the biris. On the conclusion of the investigation, show cause notice was issued to the appellant for confiscation of the seized biris and also for the confirmation of the payment of the duty on the biris found in the residential premises of the partner. Appellant contested the show cause notice on various grounds. The adjudicating authority after considering submissions made by the appellant, came to the conclusion that there is an escapement of duty, he confirmed the confiscation of 2,44,800 Nos. of handmade biris and gave an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 6,630/ -, confirmed the payment of duty on such biris and also imposed equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Act. Aggrieved by such an order appellant preferred an appeal to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the records and after hearing the partner of the appellant unit upheld the Order -in -Original. Hence this appeal.

(3.) LD . SDR on the other hand would submit that it is an admitted fact that the goods were found in the unregistered premises i.e. residential premises of the partner. If that be so, it was for the appellant to produce evidences regarding discharge of duty on the said goods. She would submit that the Order -in -Original as upheld by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is correct and does not required any interference.