JUDGMENT
V.K. Jain, Member (T)
1. Heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld.Consultant on the appeal filed by the appellants. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide O/A No. 008/Kol.II/2004 dated 20.1.2004.
2. The issue is that the Central Excise Officers went to the warehouse of the appellants on 3.9.01 and 25.9.01 and seized 3603 pcs of shirts after conducting a joint physical stock verification. Subsequently, 2830 pcs of shirts were released by the Commissioner, on being satisfied that the Central Excise duty were paid on the said goods and on the statement of the appellants that it had not undergone any further processing. The remaining 773 pcs of shirts of aggregate assessable value of Rs. 2,67,690/- have been confiscated by the lower authorities and the same has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants have been asked to pay a redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- after payment of duty of Rs. 42,830/- and an equal amount of penalty have been imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellants.
Hence the present appeal.
3. Ld.Consultant, Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, submits that the remaining 773 shirts which have been confiscated by the Department have been received by them from the various dealers who returned them after finding them to be defective. The duty on the readymade garments has been imposed on 1.3.01 and whatever has been cleared prior to imposition of duty on the readymade garments. Since they have not done any manufacturing processing, the duty is not leviable on these goods and the goods are not liable for confiscation.
4. Heard Shri Uday Kumar, ld.JDR for the Revenue. He draws my attention to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the total seizure was of 3603 pcs of shirts, out of which the Department has already released 2830 pcs of shirts where the appellants could produce the evidence. In case of 773 pcs of shirts, the appellant has not produced any documents to show its duty paid nature and they have also not proved that it has been brought before 1.3.01 when the duty was imposed. He also draws my attention to Chapter Note 4 of the Chapter 62 which reads as follows :
4. In relation to a product of this Chapter, affixing a brand name on the product, labeling or relabelling of its containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to ‘manufacture’.
In view of the above, he submits that since the appellants have not given any documents in respect of 773 pcs of shirts, the confiscation of the said shirts have been made and the redemption fine, duty and penalty have been correctly imposed by the lower authority. He submits that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) be sustained.
5. Heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has observed as under :
6. I have carefully gone through the impugned order, appeal memorandum and oral submission of the appellant. I find that in respect of 773 pcs of shirts, the appellant could not furnish any duty paying documents and they could not produce any evidence that operations as stipulated in Note 4 of Chapter 62 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was not carried out in respect of the said number of shirts. Even if we accept the appellant’s contention that the shirts were purchased from the market, the duty liability does not stand discharge in view of the said note-4.
Therefore, I am of the view that there is no need to interfere with the impugned order.
I find that the appellant has not submitted the evidence that these shirts were received from the market and these goods were brought back prior to 1.3.01. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is rejected.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.