9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 8-11-1982. The officers visited the factory and found that there was a zero zero finishing machine installed. It was felt that they were not eligible for benefit under the said notification. However, before the show cause notice was issued to the appellants, vide their challan dated 29-1-1986 they made a deposit of the duty amount and in reply to the show cause notice they admitted their mistake and requested for not initiating any further proceedings. The adjudicating authority however imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2,500/- and also ordered confiscation of the goods which were provisionally released but allowed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) the said order has been confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken to be of a clarificatory nature, the exemption was available to the fabrics processed with the aid of zero zero machine without stenter attachment and there is no positive evidence available to indicate that these machines were without stenter attachment. In his submission, at the time of drawal of panchnama, this particular aspect has not been examined because this clarification has come only at a later stage and in that case, unless it is established by evidence that the machine was without stenter attachment, the benefit cannot be extended. He also submits that going by the averments made in the statements, there is an indication that there was a shrinkage which occurred and the presumption is that stenter attachment existed. He h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty ought to be sustained. The basic allegation against them was of removal of goods without payment of duty, though they were not eligible to get the exemption under Notification 253/82. With the clarificatory notification as interpreted by the Tribunal in the decision referred to above, it is indicated that what they had initially done could be considered to be the one, which was within their right to do. With the clarification given therefore there is some scope of giving benefit thereof in relation to confiscation and imposition of penalty. Giving the same benefit, therefore, the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty are set aside and the appeal is allowed in the above ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
