9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturers of Motor Vehicle parts. They manufacture the parts of their own brand GETEX and also parts bearing the brand name of other persons. However during the period of dispute, they were availing SSI exemption and were not paying any duty on the basis that their clearances were within the exemption limit of Rs 1.5 crore. They were not even registered with the Central Excise. On visit of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .52,500/- and reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,10,023/-. Against this order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 1.2 Though this matter is listed today for disposal of stay application only, since the case involved a short issue, the bench was of the view that the matter can be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly with the consent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.P. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2006 (205) ELT-280 (Tri.Del.) wherein it was held that when branded goods were manufactured and were laying in stock in SSI Unit, the confiscation of the goods or imposition of penalty is not justified, as goods had not been cleared and the duty was payable only at the time of clearance of goods and as such there was no evidence that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02, including maintaining stock account of goods manufactured in RG-I Register, that there is contravention of the provision of Central Excise Act, 1944 and of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order upholding the confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty is correct. However looking to the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the quantum of the redemption fine and the penalty which is equal to the assessable value of the goods, is on much higher side. Accordingly the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- and the penalty under Rule 25 is reduced to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
