ROLL WELL CONVEYOR COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. REP. BY SRI PRAVEEN GOYAL Vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS) AND ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL@RESPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THE correctness of the impugned Judgment dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (in short 'the CESTAT') in Appeal Nos. 901 and 902/06 is questioned in this appeal framing the following substantial questions of law and urging various grounds in support of the same. 1. Whether the Tribunal is justified on facts and in the circumstances of the case in arriving at the conclusion that the goods were clandestinely removed by the appellant on the basis of stock verification by the departmental officials was on the basis of random weighment/verification? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in imposing fine of Rs. 75,000/ - and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and order of confiscation of 3,661 Nos. of rollers?

(3.) WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant could be denied the benefit of Cenvat credit on the ground of shortage when the stock verification by the departmental officials was on the basis of random weighment/ verification?. 3. The ground of attack of the impugned Judgment of the CESTAT is that the redemption fine and the penalty imposed under the provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules and the CENVAT Credit Rules is not tenable in law. 4. The learned Counsel submits that non -consideration of explanation regarding non -accountability of the goods, raw materials and the finished goods could not have been interfered with by the respondent when there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade the payment of excise duty on account of confiscation of goods in lieu of same redemption fine imposed is arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, the substantial questions of law Nos. 1 and 2 would arise for consideration of this Court. Further, he has contended that the Tribunal was not justified in reducing the penalty and redemption fine amount in relation to both goods namely input and finished product is arbitrary and unreasonable as the same is on the higher side as the same has not been considered by either the original authority or the first appellate authority for not considering the explanation offered by the appellant assessee regarding non -accountal of raw material and finished product in the register does not amount to intention on its part to evade payment of excise duty to the Revenue. Therefore, the substantial question No. 3 would arise for consideration.