LAWS(CE)-2006-7-153

KOCHAR SUNG-UP ACRYLIC LTD. Vs. CCE

Decided On July 19, 2006
Kochar Sung -Up Acrylic Ltd. Appellant
V/S
CCE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order -in -appeal dated 23.03.2004 that allowed the appeal filed by the revenue against the order -in -original, that set aside the proceedings initiated against the appellant.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the Officers of the preventive section of Central Excise visited the factory of the appellant and during the stock taking found a difference in the physical stock of finished goods. On further investigation it was noticed by the officers that the appellant had not recorded 1007 of acrylic Blankets found in excess, subsequently seized and as the appellant had not satisfactorily explained absence of 497 of Acrylic Blankets and there was shortage of inputs i.e. Acrylic Yarn. A show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the seized blankets and demand of duty on the finished goods found and inputs short. The adjudicating authority vide his order in original dated 31/7/2000 dropped the proceedings initiated against the appellant. The revenue preferred an appeal against the said order, which was set aside and demand was confirmed, confiscation was ordered and penalties imposed. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the confiscation of the finished goods found in excess than recorded is not correct as these goods were not available for confiscation. He relies for this proposition on the order of tribunal in the case of Ram Khazana Electronic . As regards the demand of duty on the 497 blankets it is his submission that these goods were in fact recorded in the RG1 but issued for removal of the stains observed during storage. He submits that these goods were subsequently cleared on payment of duty and that the double entry was due to the error of the dealing clerk. As regards the duty on the shortage of the raw material it is his submission that the impugned order has traversed beyond the show cause notice in as much that the demand was not raised on this point.