9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it remained closed for a continuous period of not less than 7 days, the manufacturer was entitled to abatement of duty on fulfilment of certain conditions as laid down under sub-rule 2. The appellant's unit, according to them, remained closed from 16-12-1997 to 23-12-1997. With an obvious intention of claiming abatement of duty in respect of this period the appellants gave intimation of closure of the unit to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 17-12-1997 under sub-rule 2 of Rule 96ZO. It appears that the appellants did not pursue their claim for abatement of duty for the period. In their letter of intimation given to the Assistant Commissioner as above, the party had stated their stock position of M.S. Ingots and also the electric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards other charges". The contention of ld. Consultant is that the fine so imposed was not in lieu of confiscation but "towards other charges", which according to him, is beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Central Excise Act. Ld. Consultant has also challenged the finding of the lower appellate authority that the imposition of fine by the Assistant Commissioner was impliedly in lieu of confiscation of the goods. The further contention of ld. Consultant is that the appellants' explanation for the difference in stock position was not properly considered by any of the lower authorities and therefore the confiscation and the penalty have to be set aside. 5. Ld. JDR has reiterated the observations and findings contained in the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of fine "towards other charges" rather than in lieu of confiscation, and that too without specifying the so called "other charges". Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that such fine was, by implication, inasmuch of confiscation. On a perusal of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, I do not find any such implication inasmuch as the Assistant Commissioner had explicitly imposed the fine "towards other charges". The imposition of fine for a purpose other than in lieu of confiscation of the goods has to be held to be beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. Even if it is assumed that the fine imposed is redemption fine simpliciter as contemplated under Section 34 of the Act, the quantum of the fine is too high to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
