9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue the issue for our consideration is whether the redemption fine could be levied when the seized goods had been provisionally released to the appellants on execution of a bond. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise who had adjudicated the matter had imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of the ice cream cones valued at Rs. 4,54,238.50. On appeal, the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be absolved from the responsibility of paying the redemption fine and to that extent the view taken by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was not correct. 2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents. They had prayed for decision on merits. 3. We have heard Shri V.M. Udhoji, DR, who referred to the Tribunal decision in the case of Anjali Transprints v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision in West Components Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi, 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.) = 2000 (88) ECR 544 (SC). We accordingly set aside the impugned order in appeal to that extent. 5. The adjudicating authority had imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The value of the goods confiscated was Rs. 4,54,238.50. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has not gone into the merit of the quantum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
