2002 (9) TMI 609

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... revealed 50 Cartons of Pepsi (1.5 litres) P.E.T. Bottles containing 9 Bottles each, loaded on the truck along with 350 crates of 500 ml. bottles of other Pepsi brands. Also search of premises revealed recovery of 1593 (1.5 litres) P.E.T. bottles stored in a room inside the Unit. The appellants could not produce any valid documents in respect of recovery of 1.5 litre bottles loaded on truck nor could they submit any valid document regarding 1593 Nos. of similar goods stored inside their unit. Invoice related to other products of Pepsi packed in 300 ml. bottles was however produced. The appellants admitted that the 1.5 litre Pepsi bottles recovered belonged to M/s. Annanda Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd., Vaishali and the appellant had given storage fa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed as per the circular. The fact that the goods have been manufactured in a different unit, are duty paid, are stored in a place where there is no provision to manufacture such goods was not relevant in the context of this case and violation of Rule 173H read with Rule 51A stood proved beyond doubt. With the above observations, he ordered confiscation of the goods under Rule 209(i) (b) and Rule 52A(8) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act as made applicable to Central Excise matters by Notification No. 68/63, dated 4-5-63 as amended and gave option to the assessee to redeem the goods and truck on payment of fine of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rities below. 7. I have considered the submissions of both sides. It is admitted that the appellants are not manufacturing 1.5 litre P.E.T. Bottles in their factory. They have also produced an invoice issued by M/s. Pepsico India Holding Ltd. in the name of M/s. Annanda Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd. covering the impugned goods. The authorities below have not accepted the appellant s defence on the ground that the Board s circular relied upon by them only permits an assessee to bring the goods manufactured in other factory when both the factories belong to the same manufacturer. They have also observed that in their application written to the Chief Commissioner, they have nowhere disclosed the name of M/s. Annanda Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd. However, I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X