9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. This is an appeal by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide the impugned order-in-appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The adjudicating authority had ordered confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 95,686/- and imposed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as redemption fine, out of wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order-in-original. It is stated that, non-accountal of goods in the RG-1, renders the goods liable for confiscation, as held by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Milton Laminates (P) Ltd. v. Collector reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 421 (T). Non-accountal is not a minor breach as held by the Tribunal in the case of Indian Cork Mills v. Collector - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 513 (T). 4. Heard both sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. I note that, in this case, the liberal approach adopted by the ld. Commissioner is not justified. Firstly, the material under seizure was not even recorded in the production register. Besides the debit entry shown on the invoice could not be treated as duty payment. Since, the duty was also not debited in the PLA, while it may be possible that having created an invoice and having assigned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an actual debit in the PLA, when the invoices were prepared, and PLA debit entry was assigned thereon. 6. Accordingly, I hold that, confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty, in the facts and circumstances of the case are fully justified. However, considering the fact that the duty involved in the seized goods is only Rs. 15,310/- the fine and penalty are exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
