9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to other without payment of duty and without observing central excise formalities. Appellant plead that the two mobile cranes, in question, was not in fully furnished condition, it is seen that at the time of their detention, this fact had not been pointed out. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, appellant’s contravention of the central excise law is only of technical nature and as such, the level of redemption fine and penalty imposed on them is on much higher side. Accordingly, while upholding the confiscation of the goods, redemption fine is reduced to Rs.50,000 and penalties on M/s. Omega Construction and M/s. Gulati are reduced to Rs.25,000 and Rs.10,000 respectively. - Appeal No.E/569, 582-583 of 2010-S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that these cranes were in fully finished condition and accordingly the same were placed under seizure. Though the appellant were subsequently allowed to clear these cranes provisionally on payment of duty, and also furnishing a bond and bank guarantee of Rs.3,69,250/- , till date of adjudication, the cranes were lying in the premises of the appellant. After issue of show cause notice, the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 16.2.2009 held that cranes, in question, were in fully finished condition and had been removed from the factory premises of M/s.Omega Construction Equipment without payment of duty and without accountal in RG-1 register and on this basis, he ordered confiscation of these cranes and impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Gulati Industrial Fabrication Pvt. Ltd. only on account of shortage of space in the premises of M/s. Omega Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd., that subsequently on the appellant s application, a common registration had been granted for M/s. Omega Construction Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Gulati Industrial Fabrication Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 27.5.2009, that the shifting the two cranes to the premises of M/s. Gulati Industrial cannot be called removal without payment of duty, that in view of this, confiscation of the goods with such heavy redemption fine and imposition of penalty on M/s. Omega Construction and M/s. Gulati Industrial and Shri Yoginder Prashad was not called for, that the department has not at all considered the plea made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been granted for both the units w.e.f. 27.5.2009. However, the facts remain that at the time of offence i.e. 27th November, 2007, the units of M/s. Omega Construction and M/s. Gulati Industrial though owned by the same person, were having separate central excise registration and as such, one unit could not clear the goods to other without payment of duty and without observing central excise formalities. Though the appellant plead that the two mobile cranes, in question, was not in fully furnished condition, it is seen that at the time of their detention on 27.11.2007, this fact had not been pointed out. In any case, even if the tool box and tyres were yet to be fitted, since premises of M/s. Omega Construction and M/s. Gulati Industria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
