M/S. Getex Automobiles vs C.C.E. -Delhi-Ii

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 93-CE//II/13/DLH/2012 dated 16.04.2013 by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-II].

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Getex Automobiles .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. -Delhi-II .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Ravinder Singh, DR for the Appellants

Shri A.K. Dhawan, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 13.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO.50110/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is manufacturers of Motor Vehicle parts. They manufacture the parts of their own brand GETEX and also parts bearing the brand name of other persons. However during the period of dispute, they were availing duty exemption under SSI exemption notification and were not registered with the Central Excise. The appellants factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 29.09.2010 and stock of goods totally valued of Rs.4,44,750/- was seized on the basis that goods manufactured by appellant are liable to duty. After issue of the Show Cause Notice, the seized goods were ordered to be confiscated with an option to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 70,000/- and the penalty of Rs.54,971/- on them vide order-in-original dated 07.11.2012 of the Assistant Commissioner. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld by Commissioner (A) vide order-in-appeal dated 16.04.2013 against which this appeal has been filed.

2. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the duty is payable at the time of clearance of goods and as they have not cleared any branded goods, therefore, the confiscation and penalty are not imposable on the appellant as held by this Tribunal in the case of SIP Industries Vs. C.C.E. New Delhi-II reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 280 (Tri-Del).

3. On the other hand Ld. AR oppose the contention of the appellant and submits that as the appellant has manufactured excisable goods, therefore, they are required to take registration and admittedly they have not obtained registration. Therefore, goods have been rightly confiscated and penalty has been rightly imposed.

4. Heard the parties. Considered the submission.

5. In this case although appellant manufactured branded goods and same has not been cleared and duty is payable at the time of clearance of the goods. Therefore, as held by this Tribunal in the case of SIP Industries (Supra) I hold that confiscation of the goods was not required. When the confiscation is set aside, the question of imposing of redemption fine does not arise. Consequently penalty is not imposable. With these terms, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

3

E/58608/2013-EX(SM)