2018 (11) TMI 903 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Confiscation – penalties – Process amounting to manufacture or not – manufacture of various types of paper tissues, paper hand towels, paper face tissues etc. by cutting and slitting jumbo rolls of paper – Held that:- Admittedly, during the relevant period, there was Supreme Court decision which held that cutting, slitting activities of jumbo rolls into smaller pieces does not amount to manufacture. The subsequent decision, which stands relied upon by the Tribunal in the assessees own case was passed on in 2015, whereas the seizure relates to July, 2014.
–
While upholding that the seized and confiscated goods are required to be cleared on payment of duty, there is no justification for confiscation of the same or for imposition of penalty upon the appellant – appeal allowed. – Excise Appeal No. E/51901-51902/2017 EX-DB] – FINAL ORDER NOs. 53261-53262/2018 – Dated:- 31-10-2018 – MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
llant is a product distinct from the jumbo paper rolls, it has to be held that manufacturing activity has undertaken in the appellants factory and their final product fall, under heading 4818 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Inasmuch as the appellant was clearing their final product without payment of duty, the visiting Officers seized the raw-materials as also the final product on the ground that the same are also likely to be cleared by the appellant without payment of duty. 3. In the above background proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confiscation of the seized raw-material as also the final product and for imposition of penalty on both the appellants. The said proceedings culminated into an order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner confiscating the goods with a redemption fine of ₹ 3,00,000/- and imposing penalty of ₹ 3,00,000/- on the manufacturing unit. Further penalty of ₹ 20,000/- was imposed on Shri. Naveen Rastogi, Director of the Unit
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e. As such, no mala fide can be attributed to them so as to confiscate the goods and to impose penalty upon them. In any case, he submits that out of the confiscated goods of around ₹ 18,00,000/-, the raw-material to the extent of around ₹ 11,00,000/- is also involved and as per the settled law, the raw-material, on which no credit is being availed by the assessee cannot be held liable to confiscation. Reference stands made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Paramount Rolling Mills vs. CCE – 2005 (192) ELT 666 (Tribunal-Mumbai). Accordingly, he prays for setting aside of confiscation and the penalty. 5. Countering the arguments, ld. A.R. submits that the issue of manufacture stands settled against the assessee, in their own case. As such, he submits that the goods seized from the appellants premises, which were likely to be removed without payment of duty, stands justifiably confiscated. 6. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we note that the iss
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =