9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Officers visited the godown premises of the appellants - M/s. Central Udyog Co., Amaravati (Maharashtra) situated at Bellora on 22-12-99. The search of their premises was conducted and on search 21 bundles of Tread Rubber manufactured by M/s. Saraswati Rubber Works (P) Ltd., Gurgaon were found. Shri Subhas Vasudev Rao Patil, Manager of the appellant's company in his statement of even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They were further called upon to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173Q. The present appellants M/s. Central Udyog Co., Amaravati were called upon to show cause in the same notice as to why 587.600 kgs. of rubber goods valued at Rs. 28,204/- seized from them on 22-12-99 should not be confiscated under Rule 173Q and why a pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 10,000/-. He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on them under Rule 209A. 3. The party filed an appeal but the same is rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi vide his Order dated 13-8-2001. 4. The present is the Stay Petition against the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri R. Pal Singh, Consultant for the appellants and Shri S.C. Pushkarna, JDR fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , were called upon to show cause why the seized goods should not be confiscated and why they should not be subject to penalty under Rule 209A. The charges against M/s. Saraswati Rubber Works (P) Ltd., Gurgaon however were subsequently withdrawn by means of a corrigendum dated 2-2-2001. The excisable goods under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inter alia can be subject to confiscation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reason to believe that the excisable goods he is acquiring, possessing, transporting, removing, keeping, selling, purchasing or dealing with are liable to confiscation. Since, in this case I have held that the goods are not liable to confiscation, the question of imposition of penalty under Rule 209A on the appellants would also not arise. Thus the orders - both at the original and the lower app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
