9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. - These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority ordering the confiscation of the goods and imposing penalties on appellants No. 1 and also on appellants No. 2, the Director of the firm, appellants No. 1, under Rule 209A of the Rules. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly issued to the appellants proposing the confiscation of the goods seized from the truck and the goods found unaccounted lying in the factory premises as well as imposition of penalties under the law. After getting the reply, the adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the goods with an option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- and imposed penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and as such was not required to be entered in said statutory record at that time. This ground, in my view, deserves to be accepted. The bare perusal of the impugned order itself shows that this much fabrics was lying unprocessed and the same has to be entered in the statutory record after it had become processed man made fabrics. It is not the case of the Department that these goods bear any mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed goods could be made, the redemption fine is accordingly reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) taking into account the quantity of the goods and their value. Similarly, the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the appellants No. 1 under Rule 173Q of the Rules, in the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only). Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
