9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial) For the Appellant : Shri V.B. Joshi, Adv For the Respondent: Shri K.N. Joshi, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran; These two appeals are directed against order in appeal No.166 to 167/2011 (Ahd-II)CE/PKJ/Commr(A)/Ahd, dt.12.07.11 vide which the first appellate authority has upheld the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties on both the appellants. Since both the appeals are directed against the same impugned orders, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that appellant-I, is an SSI unit, engaged in the manufacture of M.S. hot rolled bars falling under Chapter-72 of CETA, 1985. The appellant-I, is registered with central excise department to manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alued at Rs.84,788/- under rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was ordered with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs.30,000/-. The demand of duty Rs.8,733/- 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.8,733/- imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules on the appellant-I and imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of Rule 25 and would submit the issue involved in this case is non-accountable of excisable goods. It is his submission that the excisable goods which are received by the appellants are plates 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 confiscati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the entire duty was deposited before issuance of show cause notice and 25% of penalty was also deposited within a period of one month of the passing of the present orders, the same be reduced to 25%. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon ble 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 paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
