COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. ESS KAY POLYMERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None for the respondents. Shri Anurag Mishra, Advocate has requested for adjournment. But he has no locus standi to seek adjournment. His power of attorney is not on the file. The appeal has not been filed by the appellants, through him. He has also not filed his power of attorney authorising him to appear or seek adjournment on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the request of the Counsel cannot be entertained. No request for adjournment has been received from the respondents' firm. I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.

(2.) In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the impugned order -in -appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has modified the order -in -original of the adjudicating authority. The issue involved in the appeal is as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was legally entitled to set aside the confiscation of the unaccounted goods and redemption fine as determined by the adjudicating authority and convert the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q by the adjudicating authority, to under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules.

(3.) I have heard the learned JDR and gone through the record. The facts borne out from the record are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of polyethylene tubing/polyethylene sheets/film and bags. On carrying out physical verification of the stock of the final products and inputs lying in their factory by the officers of the Central Excise on 27 -8 -1999, excess stock of polybags weighing 3,295.3 kgs., was detected. This fact was admitted by Sudhir Bhatia, partner of the respondents in his statement at the spot. Similarly, various inputs detailed in the order -in -original, were found lying unaccounted in the factory premises and Sudhir Bhatia again conceded this fact in his statement.