9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against Order-in-Appeal No. 179/04, dated 27-2-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation of the goods and penalty imposed on M/s. Arihant Foam Pvt. Ltd. 2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. I also observe that when the Appeal was posted for hearing earlier, no one was present on behalf of the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Conductors v. CCE [2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (Tri.)]. I observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a specific finding in respect of 61 numbers of cushions to the effect that these were packed in polythene covers and had attained the RG I stage in respect of 55 blocks. His finding is that they had attained RG I stage as the respondents were not selling these blocks in the market. Once the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears to us that apart from offending goods which are liable to confiscation, the persons concerned with that shall be liable to penalty up to the amount specified under the Rule. It is difficult to accept the argument of the Appellants that levy of penalty is discretionary. It is only the amount of penalty which is discretionary. Both things are necessary : (1) goods are liable for confiscatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
