9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in, brother of Shri Mukesh Jain, engage in manufacture of kitchen sinks under brand name D Sons . Both these units during the period of dispute were engaged in manufacture of the above-mentioned items without obtaining Central Excise registration and without payment of duty, as according to them their clearances were well within the exemption limit of SSI exemption notification. The units of both the appellants were visited by the Jurisdictional Central Excise officers on 11/12/09. From the factory of M/s Jainsons finished goods valued at Rs. 8,31,760/- and semi-finished goods and raw material valued at Rs. 3,29,656/- and also cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- were recovered. Since it appeared that the appellant had crossed the threshold exemption lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of finished goods and also the cash seized from their premises. These show cause notice were adjudicated by the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 12/5/11 by which the Deputy Commissioner holding that during 2009-2010, the appellant had crossed the threshold exemption limit of Rs. 1.5 crore, but still had neither obtained central excise registration and nor had been paying duty in respect of their clearance, held that the finished goods seized from their premises are liable for confiscation. Accordingly, he ordered confiscation of the seized finished goods with option to be redeemed on redemption fine. He, however, ordered release of the semi-finished goods. As regards the cash seized from the premises of M/s Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of the Board s Circular No. 328/44/97-CX dated 13/8/97. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), these appeals have been filed by both the appellants. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellants, pleaded that the appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the Deputy Commissioner s order regarding confiscation of the cash, that this issue should have been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power of remand and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri R.K. Mathur, the learned Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
