9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been issued to M/s. Ambika Traders, Ludhiana. The goods cleared under the invoices were seized from the premises of M/s. Ambika Traders. The stock of final products available in the appellants factory was also verified, whereupon the officers found a shortage of 20351 Kgs. of cotton yarn and 6840 Kgs. of polyester yarn. A statement of Sh. S. Tiwari, authorised signatory of the appellants, was recorded, wherein he answered the queries made by the officers. On the basis of the results of the investigation, the department issued a show-cause notice to the appellants as well as to M/s. Ambika Traders. The notice was contested. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner passed order :- (i) Confiscating the seized goods with option to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Part-II before the officers turned up. Yet another argument advanced by the counsel is that the facts and circumstances of the case did not indicate any intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellants inasmuch as the removal of the goods was duly borne on all statutory records, in this connection, he referred to the entries made in the inward gate register, the entries made in the transport documents and those made in the octroi documents. Counsel submits that it was not justifiable on the part of the lower authorities to take penal action against the appellants in the absence of finding of mala fides. Referring to the shortages of cotton and polyester yarns, ld. counsel submits that there was only a shortage of 3110 Kgs. of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it entries were made. Till then the goods remained in the non-duty paid status. This factual position is undisputed and indisputable. The lapse has been admitted by the appellants. In such circumstances, imposition of penalty is justifiable. However, a penalty of Rs. 1.2 lakhs under Rule 173Q is, in the aforesaid circumstances, high and exorbitant. In this context, the decision cited by ld. counsel appears to be opposite. In the cited case of Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh-2001 (131) E.L.T. 98 (Tribunal) = 2001 (45) RLT 412, this Bench reduced an exorbitant penalty imposed by the departmental authorities under Rule 173Q to Rs. 5,000/-. That was a case where the seized goods were valued at over Rs. 6 lakhs. In the cited case also, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
