9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck in which the subject goods had been removed from the factory without payment of duty giving the option of redemption of the vehicle on a fine of Rs. 35,000/- and of the M.S. Bars on a fine of Rs. 6000/-. 2. The appeal by the first appellant M/s. Ram Darshan Rolling Mills is directed against the confiscation of the aforesaid quantity of M.S. Bars and the fine in lieu of confiscation fixed in respect thereof and the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5000/-. The second appeal is by Shri Dilip Nagori, the owner of the truck which was confiscated and in respect of which fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 35,000/- had been ordered. 3. Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned counsel for both the appellants submitted that the impugned goods had been tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there was no intention to evade any payment of duty. In view of the above position, Shri Upadhyay, learned counsel contended that there was no justification for confiscation and imposition of penalty. In this connection, he relied upon the Tribunal s decision in Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. Marine Drive Engine Plant, Ranchi v. CCE Patna reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 447 (Tribunal) and Heat Weld v. CCE reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 432 (Tribunal). 4. As regards the appeal filed by the owner of the truck which had been confiscated and which had been permitted to be released on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 35,000/- it was contended by the learned counsel that the order is vitiated in this regard because of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the sides. As far as the confiscation of the seized M.S. Bars which were found to have been removed from the factory without cover of invoices and without evidence of payment of duty, the explanation given that the material was taken out for the purpose of weighment in the outside weigh-bridge does not justify the fact of actual removal without due compliance with the legal requirements. It has been stated on behalf of the appellants that two consignments had earlier been removed from the factory after weighing the material in the scale available in the factory itself. The material in question which was seized from the truck after it had left the factory was 2.335 M.T. A larger quantity had been weighed by them in the factory itself an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is waiver of show cause notice can operate only insofar as the appellant factory was concerned and he had no authority for waiving the show cause notice on behalf of the owner of the truck. Further the quantum of fine which had been imposed is also much higher than the combined amount of fine and penalty imposed on the appellant firm manufacturing the subject goods, the prime offender. Imposition of fine having a relation to the value of the truck without reference to the value of the offending goods and the duty leviable thereon which is a yardstick for the offence involved would be excessive and unrealistic. In any case, as the confiscation of the truck is liable to be struck down on the ground of non issue of the show cause notice, the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
