9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R. Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran; This appeal is directed against order in appeal No.288/2011(Ahd-II)CE/PKJ/Commr(A)/Ahd, dt.17.08.11 vide which the first appellate authority has upheld the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties on the appellant. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that appellant is an SSI unit, engaged in the manufacture of M.S. hot rolled bars falling under Chapter-72 of CETA, 1985. The appellant is registered with central excise department to manufacture above said excisable goods. The appellant is also availing SSI exemption during the year 2010-11. On the basis of an intelligence, Central Excise, Preventive, Officers visited the unit of the Appellant on 18.08.2010 and inquiry made with the driver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Rs.13,792/- was confirmed under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, l944 for short paid or not paid on seized goods, purchased without bill or invoices and without following central excise procedure in contravention of Rule 10 and 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 with an intention to evade payment of duty, read with proviso to section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty of Rs.24,772/- imposed under the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 against the assessee and imposed penalty of Rs.56,650/- under the Rule 25 of Central Excise Ru1es, 2002. 3. Aggrieved by such an order of adjudicating authority, appellant preferred an appeal before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes and they have not accounted the same though he is consuming the same by storing the said goods. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 7. I find that the first appellate authority has set aside the demand which has been confirmed against the main appellant on the ground that the said goods were duty paid by one of the unit in Alang Ship Yard Ltd. 8. The next question arises is that goods are liable for confiscation under the provision of Rule 25, I find that the goods which are liable for confiscation and contemplated in provisions of Rule 25 are the finished excisable goods from manufacturer, or warehouser or registered dealer. 9. I find that there is no dispute that whatever is recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 25%. He also relies upon the decision of the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Malbro Appliances P. Ltd. - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 503 (Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 256 (Del.) = 2007 (79) RLT 109 (Del.). In view of the above, we confirm the duty demand as not contested and reduce the penalty to 25% of the duty amount. Penalty on Shri Mukesh Kumar Hari Kishan, Gupta, Director is however set aside. 2. It is further seen that the lower authorities have confiscated under-processed goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 6 lakhs. The appellants have contested that there is no provision for confiscation of raw materials or semi-finished goods and Rule 173Q/Rule 25 provides for confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
