9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder-in-appeal, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Re : Appeal No. 2233/93-NB : M/s. Unitech Machines Ltd., Saharanpur 2. Brief facts are : On 24-12-1990 Preventive Officers of Excise intercepted a Tempo vehicle carrying 2.100 metric tonnes of M.S. Scrap cleared from the factory of M/s. Unitech Machines Ltd., Saharanpur without the cover of any excise Gate Pass. This as well as another quantity of 1.118 metric tonnes of M.S. Scrap found in the factory on a visit by the officials were seized on the ground that they were not accounted for in the RG 1 Register. 3. In reply to the show cause notice issued on 14-2-1991 to the appellants, M/s. Unitech Machines Ltd. contended that M.S. Scrap account was being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave perused the records. I am unable to find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. It is clearly established from the statement dated 26-12-1990 of Parduman Kumar, driver of the Tempo carrying the scrap that he was not carrying any document relating to the excisable goods. The statement dated 26-12-1990 of the Commercial Executive of the appellants, Shri Bhatti further confirmed that there was excess quantity of the scrap in the factory. Nothing has been shown contra to cast any doubt about the findings of the lower authorities based on the said material. 8. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The same is, in the result, confirmed and the appeal of M/s. Unitech Machines Ltd. rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts in the instant appeal (Appeal No. 2232/93-NB) are similar to the facts aforesaid case. The Tribunal had held that the proper course for the adjudicating officer would have been to enforce the bond for breach of its provision in a court of law. On the said ground also [apart from others] the Tribunal had set aside the redemption fine in the said case. Following the ratio of that case, I hold that imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 4000.00 on the present appellant is not maintainable. The said redemption fine is, therefore, set aside. 12. As regards the quantum of penalty of Rs. 5000.00 taking into consideration the financial and other conditions of the appellant, Shri Bhura Khan, I feel that the ends of justice will be met if the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
