2004 (3) TMI 685

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent. [Order]. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the confiscation of the seized goods and duty payable thereon. The learned Counsel has contended that the goods could not be confiscated and duty also could not be confirmed against the appellants, who are not the manufacturers of the g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Department and the goods were also proposed to be confiscated under Rule 173Q. Penalty was also proposed on the appellants under Rule 209A. Shril Gobind Gupta appeared before the adjudicating authority in response to the show cause notice and expressed his willingness to pay the excise duty. He submitted the challan dated 9-1-2001 and further stated that he was ready to take the entire res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n served on them before ordering the confiscation, cannot be accepted. In the show cause notice copy of which was served on the appellants, confiscation of the goods was proposed. The goods had been recovered from the premises of the appellants and are excisable goods. The appellants did not claim the ownership of the goods, on one hand, but on the other hand, their representative voluntarily offe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X