9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar and molasses, classifiable under Chapter 17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 12-1-2005 the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants factory and verified stock of finished goods. They ascertained excess quantity of molasses of 6782.65 quintals involving centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Learned Advocate submits that there was no proposal of confiscation of the goods in the show cause notice and, therefore, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty are totally bad in law. He, further, submits that the excess quantity of molasses was found due to foam and, therefore, demand of duty is not justified. He relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (a) Ghatamp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of duty of Rs. 3,45,915/-under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. It is revealed from the show cause notice that the seized goods were released provisionally. Therefore, duty would be paid at the time of clearance of the goods. So, demand of duty before clearance of the goods is not justified. I agree with the submission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and duty is payable at the time of clearance of the goods. Therefore, there is a contravention of rules for failure to mention proper record of excess quantity of goods. So, imposition of penalty is justified. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. (Dictated pronounced in the Open Court.) - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
