9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Central Excise formalities - But the Appellant had neither obtained registration nor were observing any Central Excise formalities - the order upholding the confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty is correct - the quantum of the redemption fine and the penalty which is equal to the assessable value of the goods, is on much higher side - the redemption fine is reduced and the penalty under Rule 25 is reduced - Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - Appeal No.E/56151/2013 -EX[SM] - Stay Order:SO/58027/2013 - Dated:- 14-5-2013 - Mr. Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant: Sh. Ravinder Singh, Consultant For the Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Jain, A.R. ORDER Per Rakesh Kumar:- 1.1 The Appellant are manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the matter can be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly with the consent of both the sides, the pre deposit is waived for hearing of the appeal and the matter is heard for final disposal. 2. Sh. Ravinder Singh, the ld. counsel for the appellant, pleaded that while the appellant during the period of dispute was manufacturing the goods bearing the brand name of other persons and also the goods of Getex brand belonging to him and in respect of the goods bearing brand name of other person, the exemption was not available, there was no intention to evade the duty in respect of the goods under seizure as the duty was payable only at the time of clearance of goods, that in view of this, the penalty equal to assessable value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rules made there under in as much as neither the Central Excise registration was obtained nor the stock account of goods in RG-I Register being maintained and that in view of this, confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty is justified and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 4. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the record. It is not disputed that the appellant in addition to manufacture the goods of their own brand, were also manufacturing the goods bearing the brand name of other persons and as such in respect of the goods bearing the brand name of other persons, the SSI exemption was not available. The moment, to Appellant started manufacture of goods bearing the brand name of othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
