9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment Per Shri S. K. Gaule : Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 20/2006 dated 30.08.2006. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of mosquito repellant coils falling under Chapter 38 of CETA, 1985 from the processed inputs received from their sister unit at Pondichery and availed the benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd confiscated the goods seized from the premises of Shed No. C-1 (C &D) and C-2 (C & D) and their customers godown. However, he has redeemed the goods on fine of Rs.2.00 lakhs & 10.00 lakhs respectively. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs.6,70,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are in appeal. 3. The contention of the appellant is that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were initiated against the appellants on the ground that they have not got the Shed No. C-1 (C &D) and C-2 (C & D) registered and the duty paid on the goods manufactured at Shed No.B-5 (A & B) & B-6 (A& B), is illegal. It is not in dispute that the duty has been paid on the impugned goods. This aspect is recorded as illegal duty in Para 8 of the show-cause notice and in Para 4.3 of the Order-in-O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existence of Shed No. C-1 (C &D) and C-2 (C & D) to the Department, thereby the appellant contravened the provision of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and are therefore liable to penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on the appellants ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
