CEA No. 73 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CEA No. 73 of 2009
Date of decision 18 .8.2009
Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate ..Appellant
Versus
M/s Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel (Indirect Taxes)
for the appellant
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
This appeal filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act,
1944 is directed against order dated 17.7.2008 passed by the Custom Excise
and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’).
The Tribunal has endorsed the view taken by the Commissioner ( Appeals)
by holding that the Adjudicating Authority was not within its power to
confiscate the goods worth Rs. 3,12,198/- . The value of other goods in
respect of work in progress was Rs. 7,800/-. The Commissioner ( Appeals)
as well as the Tribunal held that there was no provision for confiscation of
the raw material and the goods concerning work in progress. The final
goods and the scrap were found lying in the factory. The Tribunal further
found that it was not a case of clandestine removal of goods nor it was
proved by any corroborating evidence. The Tribunal has also found that no
cenvate credit was availed on the raw material and that the dealer-
CEA No. 73 of 2009 2
respondent was not a producer nor registered producer and was merely a
user of raw material. Accordingly, it was concluded that the goods could not
be regarded as excigable goods in terms of Rule 2(d) of the Central Excise
Rules, 1944. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed
and feeling aggrieved the revenue has approached this Court.
We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and
find that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise.
On our repeated asking the learned counsel for the revenue has
not been able to show any provision dealing with confiscation of raw
material which has not been accounted. Moreover, it is admitted case of the
parties that no cenvate credit was availed on the raw material and goods
were held to be non excigable items. Once no duty is paid then there is no
question of availing any cenvate credit on such raw material. Therefore, the
appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same
is accordingly dismissed.
(M.M.Kumar)
Judge
(Jaswant Singh)
18.8.2009 Judge
okg