9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods and imposition of penalty can be issued even if the goods have been released or goods have not been seized. Prima facie, M/s. Taneja Iron & Steel Co. have cleared the seized goods without payment of duty and M/s. Taneja Brothers have dealt with the same knowing that in respect of the goods there was no duty paying documents - The penalty appears to be correctly imposed on the appellants under Rule 25 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules – Prima facie this is not a case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit - Both the appellants directed to deposit an amount Rupees Twenty Thousand as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the deposit to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted. - Appeals Nos.E/55461 and 55462 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after expiry of six months from the date of seizure i.e. 10.09.2010, the Commissioner by passing an order had extended the period by four months and as such, there is no dispute that show cause notice had been issued within the period stipulated by the Commissioner. 2. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31.01.2012 by which the goods seized from the premises of Taneja Brothers were confiscated under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with option to be redeemed on fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and besides this, penalty of Rs.1.5 Lakhs was imposed on Taneja Brothers under Rule 26 and the penalty of same amount was imposed on Taneja Iron and Steel Co. under Rule 25 of the Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing documents had been produced and same appeared to have been cleared without payment of duty, same have been correctly confiscated, that for confiscation of the goods under Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules it is not necessary that same must be seized from the premises of the manufacturer or registered dealer, that penalty has been correctly imposed on both the appellants, as while M/s. Taneja Iron and Steel Co. have cleared the seized goods without payment of duty, M/s. Taneja Brothers have dealt with those goods knowing that same were liable for confiscation. He, therefore, pleaded that this is not case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 6. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
