9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected that the bond executed by them for release of goods should be enforced for a value of Rs 5,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs 5,000/- on the appellants under Rules 173Q and 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Arguing for the appellants Shri Santhanam has stated that permission to store premiered bodies of scooters was granted by the Central Excise Authorities up to 23-12-1985. Due to shortage of space the goods could not be removed by the appellants from the said premises. As there was no permission with effect from 24-12-1985, the scooter bodies were seized by the Central Excise Officers. He has argued that the Collector in the order-in-original, at internal page 11 of the order, has held that the goods were exempted from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing for the respondent-Collector reiterated what has been stated in the order-in-original. 4. I have considered the records of the case and the arguments of both sides. I find that written permission was granted to the appellants to store the goods in the premises in question up to 23-12-1985. The appellants did not apply for extension of the permission with effect from 24-12-1985. The Collector has held that the goods were liable for confiscation for storage in an unauthorised premises. He has not mentioned the Rule under which the goods were held to be liable for confiscation. He has, however, imposed penalty of Rs 5000/- under Rule, 173Q and 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 173Q (1) provides for confiscation and penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Act or Central Excise Rules was contravened by the storage of premiered bodies in an unauthorised premises. The Collector himself has held in the impugned order that the goods were exempted from duty under the Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 as amended by the Notification No. 109/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. There was no mala fide on the part of the appellants in storing the goods in the unauthorised premises. They applied for storage of the goods in the said premises, permission was given to store up to 23-12-1985, but they did not apply for extension of the time limit for such storage. Had there been any mala fide intention to evade the payment of duty, they would not have made any application for permission at all. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
