9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged the appeal order dated 31-1-2005 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) imposing redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/-, duty liability of Rs. 34,560/- and penalty of the same amount as well as interest on the findings that there was clandestine manufacture and clearance of 24,000 bottles of packaged drinking water. The ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that when the adjudicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the appellants in deciding Revenue s appeal before him. The ld. Counsel supported order of adjudication. He urged that although goods were found excess, those were not liable to seizure when such goods were inside the factory and there was no occasion of movement thereof without following due procedural of Excise Law and those goods have suffered duty on removal in due course. 2. Ld. DR for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Revenue. Ld. Counsel for the appellants in the course of hearing cited the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases (i) Kartar Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 443 (Tribunal), (ii) Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi II reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 466 (Tri. - Del.), (iii) Bhillai Conductors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed purchase of input. So far this aspect is concerned, neither source nor mala fide were brought to record, that too when the excess goods did not jump out of the factory to hold evasion of duty. In such scenario, imposition of fine was un-called for and levy of penalty is undesirable when the element of evasion of duty was not brought to record. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
