CEA No.48 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 6438-CII of 2008 & CEA No.48 of 2008 Date of Decision: 09.09.2008 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Central Excise House, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana ...... Appellant Versus M/s Atma Ram Mela Ram Steel (P) Ltd. and another ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 4. Present: Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 6438-CII of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of three days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CEA No.48 of 2008 This an appeal by the revenue filed under Section 35 (G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 17.04.2007 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), proposing following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that non-alloy steel ingots (raw material)found in excess and not entered in the statutory records of the respondents is not liable to confiscation under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 21002? CEA No.48 of 2008 2 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed upon the respondents in respect of confiscated unaccounted for raw material and penalty for this lapse on the Director of the company under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002? On 21.1.203 the Central Excise Staff visited the factory of the respondents and found 122 Nos. of non-alloy steel ingots weighing 11.807 metric tonnes valued at Rs. 1, 45, 552/- in excess of the recorded balance which were seized under Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). By order dated 21.12.2004 the seized stock was confiscated under Rule 25, redemption fine of Rs. 36,000/- as well as penalty of Rs. 23, 228/- were imposed under Section 11 AC read with Rule 25. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed on respondent No.2 under Rule 26 of the Rules. In appeal by the respondents, the Commissioner Appeals set aside the confiscation as well as the penalties. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal who, while upholding the order of the Commissioner held as a fact that the finding with regard to the ingots being intended to be cleared clandestinely was without any material and based on mere conjecture. In CEA No. 51 of 2008, Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh versus M/s Kakkar Complex Steels (P) Ltd., decided on 25.08.2008, this Court held as follows:- “In view of finding of the Tribunal that no clandestine removal was involved, setting aside of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty cannot be held in any manner to be illegal. Once it was held that there was no means rea, there is nothing wrong in setting aside the penalty and stock confiscation.” CEA No.48 of 2008 3 In this view of the matter we are of the view that substantial questions of law proposed by the revenue do not arise . The appeal is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 09, 2008 sunita