9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that- The respondents manufactured excisable goods and cleared the same without accounting for the same and without paying the duty. The lower appellate authority has upheld the duty demand as well as the penalty imposed on the respondents. - E/128-129/2008 - 65-66/2010 - Dated:- 8-1-2010 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the same is required to be confiscated in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. UOI and Others - 1988 (34) ELT 30 (Bom.). As regards the goods seized from M/s. R.K. Extrusions, he states that though no separate notice has been issued to M/s. R.K. Extrusions, a copy of the notice has been issued to Shri V. Balaraman, who apart from b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the person from whose possession the goods have been seized should also be given a notice for confiscating the same. As regards the excess goods found within the factory premises, the Ld. Consultant prays for a lenient view. 4. After considering the submissions made by both sides, and the cited case law, I find that it is a clear case where the respondents have been manufacturing excisable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vanced on behalf of the department by the Ld. JCDR cannot be accepted. The department clearly faulted in not issuing a separate Show Cause Notice to M/s. R.K. Extrusions. As such, the decision of the lower appellate authority in setting aside the confiscation in respect of the impugned goods seized from the custody of M/s. R.K. Extrusions is upheld. The department's appeal No. E/128/2008 is partly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
