TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- Duty liability on the quantity of the goods is only Rs.24,000/- - The ends of the justice will be met if the redemption fine is reduced from Rs.1,15,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. The impugned order upholding the confiscation of the goods, is correct, but the amount of redemption fine is reduced to Rs.40,000/-. Penalty under Rule 26/ Rule 24 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Appellant Mr. Manoj Kumar, stated that the vehicle was going for weighing purposes and there was no document and has admitted the mistake of the removal of the excisable goods without valid documents/invoices to avoid central excise duty – Held that:- The Second appellant penalised under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - The second appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case that the main appellant M/s. KPG Enterprise is a registered unit for breaking up ship and is registered with the department under the provisions of Excise Act Rules made thereunder. The central excise officers found one tractor lying near the registered premises of the main appellant having scrap arising out of ship breaking, on enquiry with the driver of the tractor it was ascertained that the scrap was loaded from appellant premises. On further enquiry and recording of the statement, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for demand of the duty which was found in the said tractor, interest thereof, and equivalent amount of penalty and also penalties on second appellant for further confiscation of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submission that as regards the penalty imposed on the individual, the amount of penalty is excessive, in as much that he is an employee and had explained the procedure when the goods were removed from the factory premises for weighing purposes. 5. Ld. D.R. on the other hand would submit that the appellant should have followed the procedures which have been laid down by taking permission from the jurisdictional division for removal of the excisable goods for weighing purposes and subsequently issuing the invoice. It is his submission that having not done so, order of confiscation of the goods was correct. As regards the duty liability, interest thereof, it is his submission that the appellant has paid the entire amount of duty liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement indicates that the goods were removed without any preparation of invoices or recording them in the statutory records. As such, since the goods are liable to duty, their confiscation is upheld under the provisions of 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority of Rs.1,15,000/- seems to be excessive in as much as the duty liability on the said quantity of the goods is only Rs.24,000/-. The ends of the justice will be met if the redemption fine is reduced from Rs.1,15,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. The impugned order upholding the confiscation of the goods, is correct, but the amount of redemption fine is reduced to Rs.40,000/-. Subject to such modification, the appeal filed by the main appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|