2005 (4) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. Shri U.K. Tyagi, ld. Advocate pleaded that the appellants had purchased Multi-media speakers from M/s. Technocrat System and they have made the payment for these goods through cheques and accounted for these goods in their stock register. The department has seized the goods from their premises on the ground that these were branded goods and were required .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lear the goods on payment of duty. There is no evidence against the appellants that they were aware that the goods cleared by M/s. Technocrat System are liable for confiscation. He relied on the following decision of the Tribunal :- (1)     Motilal Padampat Udyog v. CCE, Patna [1998 (104) E.L.T. 39 (Tri.)]            Wherein i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per invoice; that he was not aware of the excisability of the branded goods purchased from M/s. Technocrat System." He stated that on the face of this statement, the lower authorities have considered that the appellants were aware that the goods were excisable and appellants were knowing that these were liable for confiscation. 4. I find that the statement of Shri J.P. Aggarwal, Proprietor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X