9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,000/- for such contravention, has given relief by not confirming the Order-in-Original pertaining to confiscation of goods, imposing RF to an extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The original authority imposed Rs. 1,00,000/- fine on confiscation of goods which were found excess in the factory premises and also at the Calcutta premises. The confiscation of goods at Calcutta premises has been held to be unsustainable by the Commissioner (Appeals). This portion of the order is not challenged. The Revenue contends that the excess stock of 3423 cartons worth Rs. 4,56,705/- found in excess over RG-1 at the factory was required to have been confiscated and RF imposed and relief should not have been granted. 2. I have heard the learned JDR. 3. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r confiscation in terms of Rule 173Q and impose RF appropriately. 4. The learned Consultant tries to justify the non-imposition of RF by the Commissioner (Appeals) by reading the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 10 of the order. He relied on the rulings rendered in the following cases:- (i) Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (T) (ii) Sumeet Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Surat - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 335 (Tri.- Mumbai) (iii) Jayshree Plastics v. CCE, Raipur - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 920 (Tri. - Kolkata). The learned Consultant prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have considered the submissions. On examining the provisions of Rule 173Q, it is clear on reading of the Rule 173Q(1)(b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscation is upheld and the Redemption fine is fixed at Rs. 40,000/- which is less than 10% of the value of the goods, in terms of the practice of the Tribunal. 5.1 Now, coming to the case-laws relied by both sides, it is seen that the respondent had committed offence on an earlier occasion also. By Final Order No. 1869/2004 dated 29-11-2004, the excess stock of goods valued at Rs. 24,78,850/- were seized by Mahazar on 1-8-1991. The RF imposed was confirmed. However, it was reduced by this Bench. In view of the consistent practice of the respondents in indulging in this practice, they are not required to be given any concession but to be imposed with RF as fixed and confirmed supra. In so far as the citation referred to by the learned Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
