9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The issue involved in this case is in respect of imposition of penalty and redemption fine on the goods which was found in excess during the visits of the Central Excise Officers. 2. Relevant facts for the consideration are that the appellants factory was visited by the officers of Revenue on 30th August, 2001 and on physical verification of the stock, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y-Five Thousand). 3. The ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the seizure of the goods was in fact not correct as these goods were in-process goods. He draws my attention to the letter dated 5-9-2001 which was sent to the Commissioner of Central Excise immediately on the seizure of the goods in their factory. He submits that in that letter they had categorically intimated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the intention of the appellants to remove the goods which was found in excess. It is a settled law that in order to confiscate the goods, the Show Cause Notice is to bring out the intention of the appellants to remove the goods clandestinely then only the question of attempt to remove the goods clandestinely would be attracted. I also, further, notice that the appellants had immediately i.e. on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an intention to remove the goods clandestinely and Rule 173Q now Rule 25 requires mens rea for imposition of the penalty and confiscation of the goods not accounted. Following the said decision, I hold that confiscation of the said goods are not correct and impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the Redemption Fine imposed upon the appellant is also set aside along with the penalty imposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
