9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. Shri Bidhan Chandra, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. - Appellants are an EOU who have been charged with unaccounted production and non-duty payment clearance of MMF, and an domestic traffic area unit (DTA unit) working on hand processing exemption, partner of the EOU firm; proprietor of DTA unit & an owner of Tempo No. MH-04-S-4080 who are aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs situated at CN 18, Chaudhary Estate, Mumbai 400078 a DTA unit, were produced by the person incharge of the Tempo. Further enquiries were made by officers Central Excise at the EOU & DTA unit. They verified the stocks & seized the goods. A SCN was issued answerable to Commissioner Central Excise Mumbai-II as to why - (i) Fabrics as recorded in panchanama dated 16-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands & imposed the penalty under section 11AC & Rule 209A. The tempo was ordered to be confiscated under Rule 173Q (2) read with Rule 209 & an offer of redemption on Rs. 1 lakh was given. Hence these appeals. 2.1 After hearing both sides & considering the submission, it is found -(a) The order impugned does not find any overt or act in concert with the knowledge of the owner of the temp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the tempo under Rule 173Q(2) read with Rule 209 cannot be upheld as it was only a means to transport of the goods. It is not e.g. plant & machine etc. of a manufacturers which are liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q(2). The confiscation order is set aside, more so when the ld. Commissioner has recorded no liability to confiscate under Rule 173Q(2) since the demand period was September 2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
