9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 17-5-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order in original of the Deputy Commissioner dated 19-5-1999 who ordered the confiscation of the excess found finished goods and raw material with option to get the same redeemed on payment of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- respectively and also imposed penalty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- respectively and he also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them. No duty was, however, raised as the finished goods and raw materials were still lying in the factory premises and the appellants were only directed to take these goods into account properly. 3. This order of the Deputy Commissioner had been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. I have heard both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory premises at that time. Therefore, keeping in view all the above referred facts and circumstances it can be safely concluded that it was a case of non-accountal of the finished goods raw material in the statutory record by the appellants. That being so, the provisions of Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules which are penal in nature, could not be invoked. The appellants could only be penalis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds should have been in the preparation for such removal or they must have been seized while being transported without recovery of gate passes and without payment of duty. 6. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order in original of the Deputy Commissioner regarding confiscation of the goods i.e. finished goods and raw materials with option to get the same r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
