ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Shri V.S. Sejpal, learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellants states that the impugned order has been passed ignoring letter of intimation given on 24th August, 2000 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The said letter clearly specifies the details of inputs/raw materials/semi-finished goods sent for further manufacture/processing/other operation to the appellants’ own unit. The addresses of the units were also given and it was indicated that the impugned goods are being sent for filtration. This intimation was given under Central Excise Rule 57AC(5). He says that the impugned order is full of contradiction. The appellants have been charged that they sent the goods for storage whereas the order mentions about processing. Besides, he cites that Rule 210 provides for maximum penalty of Rs. 5,000/- whereas Rs. 10 Lacs has been imposed on the appellants under Rule 209A/210. He also states that the goods have been clearly accounted for, the movement was under intimation, there is no loss to Revenue nor any such loss of duty has been quantified and therefore, there is no case for confiscation of the impugned goods and imposition of penalty.
2. Shri M.H. Sheikh, learned J.D.R. appearing for the Revenue supports the impugned order passed by the Commissioner.
3. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that the show cause notice dated 6-8-2001 alleges that the appellants misdeclared their premises at 5 Bhassein Bhavan as a place for further processing/job work and have contravened the provisions of Section 6 of Central Excise Act and Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. It also alleges that they have stored excisable goods without having valid registration for storage and without maintaining the records under Central Excise Rules. The notice also alleges that the appellants cleared 232000 Kgs of octyl methoxy cinnamate and 3123 kgs of Butyl methoxy dibenzoyl methane without payment of duty and stored the same in the godown. The notice also alleges misuse of the facility provided under Rule 57F(4)/57AC(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000 and Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001.
4. It has been taken note of in the impugned order that the goods removed to the second premises were subjected to some process. Even, the Chemical Examiner’s report cited in the impugned order also states that the product OMC at both places were different. It is, therefore, apparent that on the one hand a charge has been made that the second place was misdeclared as a place of further processing/job work and that the same was used as a place of mere storage, on the other hand there is a finding in the impugned order that the goods were subjected to some processing at the second place. The letter of the appellants also clearly mentioned that the goods are being taken for processing of filtration. In view of such contradictory allegations and findings, it is difficult to appreciate why the Commissioner has imposed a heavy fine of Rs. 15 Lacs and in addition a penalty of Rs. 10 Lacs. There is no clear cut finding of any contravention and there is no allegation of any removal without payment of duty and no duty demand has been made/confirmed in the impugned notice/order. When the appellants had intimated regarding removal of the goods for filtration at a second place, they should have been guided to obtain a registration for the said place and to fulfill any other legal requirement necessary to be followed. There is nothing on record what action was taken by the departmental authorities between 24th August, 2000, the date of intimation and subsequent visit to the premises by the preventive officers on 10th February, 2001. In this circumstance, we set aside the impugned order of confiscation and penalty with consequential relief to the appellants. The appellants will forthwith apply for registration for the second premises as a place of storage/processing and take the impugned goods into their books of account for further processing/clearance on payment of duty in case the same has not been already accounted for.
5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.