9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The brief facts of the case are that on 20-10-1993, the officers of the Central Excise Department visited the factory premises of the appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of fluorescent lighting tubes falling under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and seized fluorescent lighting tubes marked with the date of manufacture 7/92 on the ground that they had not been e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice proposing confiscation of the seized goods and recovery of duty of Rs. 62,250/- and proposing imposition of penalty was issued to the appellants and the case was adjudicated by the Additional Collector who confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The lower appellate authority having upheld the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 register. The Additional Collector has seen the different RG-1 stages prescribed in the Delhi Collectorate Trade Notice and the Basic Manual. While the Basic Manual provides for entering production in RG-1 register after fitting of metallic cap and then get soldering done, while the Trade Notice provides for entry in RG-1 after final testing and inspection. The Additional Collector has considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value of the goods. There is no satisfactory explanation or argument for reduction of the quantum of redemption fine and penalty and since both the amounts are not disproportionate to the value of the goods, I see no reason to interfere with the quantum fixed by the authorities below.
3. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal rejected. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
