9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized when they were being transported in a Van. The examination of the goods transported in the Van showed that about 58,000 meters of fabric were being removed without any invoice exhibiting payment of Central Excise duty due on the goods. Subsequent verifications at the appellants factory and examination of the appellant s employees confirmed that the goods in excess had been clandestinely manufactured and cleared without payment of Central Excise Duty. The subsequent proceedings started against the appellant culminated in the confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, confiscation of the Van with option to redeem on the payment of Rs. 15,000/-, and imposition of penalty of Rs. 15,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f goods on execution of bond. The appellant s submission is that the earlier decision of the Apex Court in the Ion Exchange case being a decision of three Judges Bench, would prevail over the later two Judges Bench (Western Components Ltd. judgment) of the Apex Court. The appellants have also submitted in the written submissions that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence as it amounts to several times the Central Excise duty sought to be evaded. 3. Heard the learned DR. He submitted that the present case related to deliberate evasion of Central Excise Duty by the appellants by clandestinely producing and selling excisable goods without payment of Central Excise Duty. He also pointed out that the offence rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Supreme Court is also not correct. The order of the Supreme Court in the Ion Exchange case was only a rejection of an S.L.P. filed against a stay order. The report of the Supreme Court s order in that case in the E.L.T. states that the Court found no reason to interfere with the stay order of the Tribunal as the stay order had stated that if any other remedy is available to the Revenue, it is open to the Revenue to enforce the Bond. An order of the Supreme Court dismissing an SLP and refusing to interfere with an order does not lay down the law on the subject. Therefore, the appellant is clearly in error in his submission that a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that no action to confiscate the goods which had earlier bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
