M/S.Iceberg Foods Ltd vs C.C.E., Rohtak

(Arising out of OIA No.48/GRM/RTK/2006 dt.31.3.2006 passed by CCE (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon)

M/s.Iceberg Foods Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E., Rohtak Respondent

Appearance:

Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar

Respondent: Shri Y.P.Sharma, Authorised Representative

Honble Mr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr.P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

1.

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

No

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

No

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

seen

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

Yes

Coram: Honble Mr. P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr.P.S.Pruthi, Member(Technical)

Date of Hearing/decision: 20.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO.51061/2015

PER: P.K.DAS

Learned Advocate requested adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is appearing before the Settlement Commission at New Delhi. We are not impressed with the reason of adjournment and considering the appeal is old one, we proceeded to hear the appeal.

2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Mineral Water and Soda Water classifiable under sub heading 2201.19 and 2202.20 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 13.2.2003, Central Excise Officers visited the appellants factory premises and found that the appellant procured excisable goods by availing exemption of Central Excise duty of Rs.55,280/- under Notification No.6/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 on the basis of C.T.2 certificate issued by the department for use in their factory. It was found that the Appellant cleared the said goods to their another unit at Nathupur, Kundli on the basis of private challan without payment of duty. It was also noticed during the stock verification that there was excess stock of finished goods involving central excise duty ofRs.23,571/- of the balance recorded in the daily stock register. The Central Excise Officers seized the excess stock. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs.55,280/- alongwith interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount of duty. He has also confiscated the seized goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs.25,255/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.

3. After considering the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellant removed the excisable goods received under C.T. 2 certificate to their another unit at Nathupur, Kundli, which was not registered premises under the Central Excise Rules. It is contended by the appellant that due to ignorance, they could not intimate, which is only a technical mistake and may be condoned. We agree with the findings of the lower authorities that they are liable to pay duty on the emoval of excisable goods without payment of duty to a unregistered premises. But, as there was no malafide on the part of the appellant as held by the adjudicating authority, in our considered view, imposition of penalty under section11AC is not warranted.

4. Regarding the confiscation of the excisable goods, the appellant stated before the Central Excise Officers that the entries in the RG-1 register could not be made as the concerned person was on leave. There was no intention to remove the goods clandestinely as they are lying in the factory premises. This fact was not disputed by the adjudicating authority, and therefore, confiscation and imposition of redemption fine are not warranted.

5. In view of above discussion, we uphold the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs.55,280/- alongwith interest. The imposition of penalty, confiscation and redemption fine are set aside.

6. The appeal is allowed partly.

(Pronounced in the court)

(P.S.PRUTHI) (P.K.DAS)

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

mk

3