TRANSLAM LTD. AND DINESH Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the same order. They were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.

(2.) THE appellant is a dealer registered with central excise for the purpose of issuing modvat invoices. The subject of this appeal is the confiscation of eight coils of copper rods weighing 18,466 kgs and valued at Rs. 23, 08,250/ -. The same has been confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel is that the action is entirely unwarranted inasmuch as there was no violation of central excise rules. It is being pointed out that the copper coils in question were purchased by the appellant dealer from M/s. Birla Copper and this position is confirmed by the statutory record maintained by the appellanat The learned Counsel submits that there is no dispute raised about the duty paid character of these copper coils. It is the appellant's contention that these copper coils had been sold by it to the second appellant M/s. Dinesh Industries against a verbal order. The goods had also been despatched by two tempos and that the tempos were at gate of the M/s Dinesh Industries when they were intercepted by the central excise officers. Subsequent verification of record of the appellant and verification with the proprietor M/s. Dinesh Industries had also confirmed the sale of the copper coils to M/s. Dinesh Industries. The appellant had also issued 4 invoices for the goods, though those invoices were not despatched along with the consignments. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that consignments sold by a dealer do not have to be accompanied by invoices issued under Rule 57GG. They are required only for the purpose of taking modvat credit on the goods. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that confiscation of the duty paid materials was entirely unjustified in the circumstances of the case.