9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed redemption of the said goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh apart from imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q. 2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, ld. Counsel for the appellants has argued that the allegation against the appellants was that the said quantity of 199 bags found in their bagging section adjacent to their Bonded Store Room (BSR) by the inspecting Officers was kept there without entering in the RG-1 Register with the intention of clandestinely removing them without payment of duty. In this connection, ld. Counsel draws attention to the statement given by the authorised signatory of the appellants under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act on 3-4-1996, the date of inspection, in which, in reply to question No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants had submitted a tabulated statement relating to the said goods giving details of the date of manufacture, batch number, value of the goods, rate of duty etc. He drew attention to the fact that in a number of cases the date of manufacture, as shown in the tabulated statement indicates the dates as 1993, 1994, 1995 etc., whereas the seizure was made in 1996. If the appellants had kept the goods in their bagging section with intention to remove the goods in a clandestine manner without paying duty or with any other mala fide intention, there was no reason for them to keep the said goods in the bagging section for such long periods. This itself would show that there was no attempt to remove goods in clandestine manner. The lapse, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the RG 1 Register. In such cases it had been held that confiscation would not be justified and only a small penalty was called for. He relies on M/s. Balls and Cylpebs Ltd. v. CCE Allahabad - [1997 (92) E.L.T. 496 (T) = 1996 (15) RLT 560 (CEGAT)] where the Tribunal had set aside confiscation of the goods based on the allegation of attempted clandestine removal when the goods were found in the store room. The order of confiscation was therefore set aside and only a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- for non-accountal was sustained. Similarly, in Kanthal India Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - [1999 (108) E.L.T. 385 (T) = 1999 (31) RLT 547 (CEGAT)] the Tribunal had held that where the adjudicating authority had not given any clear finding about attempt to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I, therefore, find that the imposition of penalty is sustainable, ld. Counsel had argued that the quantum of Rs. 50,000/- on a total value of little over Rs. 3 lakhs was disproportionate and in terms of the ratio of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal cited by him, a token penalty alone was called for. Taking an overall view of the case and following the ratio of the Tribunal decisions cited above, I reduce the penalty amount from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) 7. In the result, the order of confiscation and redemption fine is set aside. The penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. Appeal allowed in the above terms. 8. The appellants will be entitled to the consequential benefits, if any, in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
