9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides. 2. Vide the impugned orders the authorities below have confiscated the excess found goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,07,900/- (rupees two lakh seven thousand nine hundred) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not dispute that painting and testing was to be done but observes that the goods could be marketed without painting and without testing. Drawing my attention to the purchase order that painting and testing was one of the requirements of the said order and was to be adhered to by the appellant. 4. Ld. adv. also submit that the appellant has sought permission from their Superintendent vide let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pandit, ld. JDR for the Revenue. 7. After going through the impugned order passed by the authorities below I find that there is no dispute about the fact that the goods in question were yet to be painted and tested. The observations of the Asst. Commr. that the goods could be marketed without painting and testing does not advance the Revenue s case inasmuch as it is clear from the terms of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises is violative of provisions of central excise law, nevertheless I find that the appellants jurisdictional superintendent on being approached by the appellant in October 1995 never adviced against such stacking of the goods outside the factory premises. The appellants cannot be put to fault for such contravention. In view of the foregoing I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
