9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the same were meant for clandestine removal. The said copper catenary wire was meant for supplies to railways and as such the clandestine removal of the same is a non-possibility. Therefore, the wire in question is not liable to confiscation for their non-entry in RG-I register. The goods were removed from the factory premises to near the factory gate. Though the same might be on account of constraint of space in the factory premises but fact remains that such removal is not permissible. Admittedly there was violation of provisions of law, though technical. For such violation, appellant is liable to penalty. The goods were kept outside the factory, premises without any intention to evade payment of duty and having already penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority confirming the demand of duty in respect of the said goods, confiscating the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh. In addition, penalty of Rs. 4,74,517/- i.e., equal amount of duty was imposed on the firm u/s 11AC as also on Shri Ranjeet Gupta, MD under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Appeal against the above order did not succeed before Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 4. I have heard both the sides duly represented Shri by S.P. Ojha, ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Shri K.P. Singh, ld. AR, appearing for the Revenue. 5. The appellants main contention is that the wire in question was the production of the previous day and though the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uct out of the said raw material duly entered in records. 8. I further note that Shri Ranjeet Gupta in his on the spot statement, though has admitted that the goods were kept outside the factory gate but has nowhere has agreed that the same were meant for clandestine removal. I also take cognizance of the appellants submission that the said copper catenary wire was meant for supplies to railways and as such the clandestine removal of the same is a non-possibility. As such by taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the wire in question is not liable to confiscation for their non-entry in RG-I register. 9. As regards the penalty of Rs. 4,74,517/- imposed on the manufacturing unit, I find that admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
