9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods seized with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5,30,000/-, imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,30,682/- on the Company and penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- each on Shri S.K. Jain, Managing Director and Shri S.A. Shastri, authorized signatory of the Company. 2. Ld. Advocate Shri K.I. Vyas, on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants had no intention to remove the same without payment of duty in a clandestine manner. He cited various decisions of the Tribunal in Nilesh Textiles P. Ltd. [2003 (162) E.L.T. 553 (Tri.-Mumbai)], Camex Intermediates Ltd. [2008 (221) E.L.T. 588 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] and Standard Steel Re-rolling Mills [2007 (213) E.L.T. 153 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]. He also submits that the issue regarding conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i-finished goods under Rule 25(i)(d) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that the provisions of Central Excise law were not followed with an intention to evade duty. However, no evidence has been unearthed nor is there any allegation against the appellant having removed the goods illicitly. In the absence of any evidence of clandestine removal of any goods, clause (d) of Rule 25(i) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter Rules for short) is attracted. Further, I also find that in Camex Intermediates Ltd. this Tribunal had held that raw materials cannot be confiscated. Relevant observation of the Tribunal in Para 5, in the above case are reproduced :- 5. Apart from the above, I find that the authorities below have also confis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, ld. Advocate could not exactly state that from which dated Managing Director fallen ill. Visit of the officers was on 23-3-2005 and the statement of the Managing Director was recorded on 11-4-2005. Apparently, during that date he had not met with accident or in the hospital. Previous Director had left the Company somewhere in the Feb., 2005. Therefore, it is quite clear that authorized signatory was working under the directions of the present Managing Director, who is the appellant in this case. Further, it also not a case that Managing Director was not aware of the incidents or the happenings in the Company. In fact, the Managing Director had clearly admitted that there was a mistake in accounting for the goods. Under these circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
