2004 (97) ECC 434 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

New Delhi -- Bench-NB(SM)

Shri S.S. Kang, Member (J)

Ashoka Transmissions Wire Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

CCE, Jaipur

Appeal No. E/4024/03-NBS

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 615-617 (SN)CE/JPR-I/2003 dated 25.11.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur]

Final Order No. A/938/2004/NB(SM), dt. 12.5.04, Certified on 24.6.2004

Confiscation (C. Excise)

Inputs found in excess -- Redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000 -- Appellant has not availed any credit in respect of duty paid on the steel wire as the same was purchased from the dealers. Hence, confiscation of steel wire is not sustainable and hence set aside. The appellants were manufacturing ACC & ANT conductors on job work basis. Intimation should have been given by H.M. Conductors for sending the goods to the appellants on job work basis. Goods were duly returned. H.M. Conductors also produced copies of job work receipt and dispatch of these goods. Confiscation is not sustainable and hence set aside.

[Paras 2, 6 & 7]

Appeal is allowed.

PRESENT :

Shri Pankaj Mullick, Consultant for the appellants.

Shri P.M. Rao, JDR for the respondent.

Case Cited :

CCE, Indore v. Ajmer Food Industries, 2004 (60) RLT 297..................................... [Para 4]

Per : S.S. Kang

Heard both sides.

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the inputs found in excess were confiscated and released on payment of redemption fine and in respect of the confiscation of AAC & ANT Conductors, in his impugned order, the redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed for release of the above-mentioned goods.

3. The appellants are not contesting the other demands confirmed by the impugned order.

4. The contention of the appellants is that 6.994 M.T. of steel wire was the inputs for the manufacture of conductors and this wire was purchased from the traders and no modvat credit has been availed in respect of the duty paid. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore v. Ajmer Food Industries, 2004 (60) RLT 297 to submit that the confiscation of inputs is not sustainable. In respect of the confiscation of ACC & ANT Conductors, the contention is that these goods were manufactured on job work basis on the material supplied by M/s. H.M. Conductors. These goods were received under job work challan dated 25.5.2000 issued by M/s. H.M. Conductors & Engineers (P) Ltd. And after job work the goods were duly sent to M/s. H.M. Conductors and Engineers (P) Ltd. vide delivery challan dated 15.7.2000 and the appellants were maintaining the record in respect of the activity undertaken on job work basis. The contention of the appellants is that this plea is not accepted by the Revenue on the ground that no intimation for sending the goods for job work under the Central Excise Rules was given to the Revenue. The contention is that the intimation of sending the goods for job work was to be given by M/s. H.M. Conductors & Engineers (P) Ltd. and not by the present appellant.

5. The learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that no proper record regarding job work activity is maintained by the appellant nor any intimation for sending the goods for job work was given to the Revenue.

6. In this case, Steel wire which is inputs for the manufacture of conductors was confiscated on the ground that this quantity was not entered in their statutory record. Admittedly, the appellant has not availed any credit in respect of the duty paid on the steel wire as the same was purchased from the dealers. The Tribunal in the case relied upon by the appellants held that the inputs which are not entered in the stock are not liable for confiscation. In view of this, the confiscation of steel wire is not sustainable and hence set aside.

7. In respect of confiscation of ACC & ANT Conductors, it is not disputed by the Revenue that the appellants were manufacturing the goods on job work basis. The only objection is that no intimation for sending the goods for job work was given to the Revenue. The intimation should have been given by M/s. H.M. Conductors for sending the goods to the appellants on job work basis. The goods were duly returned. M/s. H.M. Conductors also produced copies of job work receipt and dispatch of these goods. In these circumstances, the confiscation of these goods is not sustainable and hence set aside. The appeal is allowed.

………………………