9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order]. - When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard ld. SDR. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the redemption fine in respect of the goods which were seized, was set aside on the ground that the goods were not available and these were released on provisional basis and also se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,875/- on the firm. 4. The contention is that as the goods were cleared without payment of duty and were seized outside the factory, therefore, the respondent is liable for penal action under Section 11AC of Central Excise Rules and as the goods were provisionally released after seizure, therefore, setting aside the redemption fine is also not sustainable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory without paying any duty, therefore, there was a clear intention on the part of the respondent to evade payment of duty. The facts of the case in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 are not parallel to the facts of the present case. In that case there was no clandestine removal of the goods manufactured by the assessee. In these circumstances, sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
