9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bajaj, Member (J)]. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated nil, communicated to them on 21-9-1995, who upheld the order-in-original dated 4-8-1995 of the Additional Collector ordering seizure of the goods i.e. sugar and the molasses with an option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 25,000/- as redemption fine and imposing penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice was issued to the appellants requiring them to show cause as to why the goods be not seized and penalty be not imposed on them. The appellants, however, contested the show cause notice and maintained that the entries in the relevant records i.e. RG 1 and RG 6 registers, inadvertently could not be made and there was no intention on the part of the appellants to remove the goods cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legally passed. 6. The learned JDR has not been able to dispute this contention of the Counsel. It is an admitted fact that the excess found sugar was still lying in the factory premises of the appellants. There is nothing on record to show record that there was any intention on the part of the appellants to remove the same. It is well settled that the seizure of the goods cannot be ordered when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
