9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) has already imposed penalty of ₹ 5000/- on the respondent for non-maintenance of proper records. In the absence of any evidence to show that the goods were not entered in the RG-I register with a mala fide intention to remove the same, I am of the view that the confiscation of the same has rightly been set aside by the appellate authority - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. 3354 of 2006-SM - F. Order No. 58708/2013 - Dated:- 2-1-2014 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. For the Appellant : Shri Pramod Kumar, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa : Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the confiscation of the excess found goods and has set aside the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit for testing the final products were out of order. In support, the respondents had placed a print out of testing indicating that print out show number of sparks as 0 which meant spectrometer was faulty. He also took into consideration a report from Service Engineer of M/s Thelsaa Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. that spectrometer was made in working condition on 22.11.2004 at 6.30 P.M. The Commissioner also considered that fact that Shri Govind Ram the employee of the company who was doing the job of entering in RG-I register had left the job of the firm and as such necessary entries could not be done. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) held as under :- 7. The seizure had been made under a reasonable belief that good were likely to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Rs. Ten Lacs only) is dropped. Penalty imposed on the Appellant under Rule 25 is also not warranted and same is also set aside. But at the same time I find that the Appellant had violated the provisions of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 for which they are liable to penalized under Rule 27 ibid. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed on the Appellant under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Revenue in their memo of appeal have not rebutted the findings of facts arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) and has also not placed on record any evidence to show that the goods were either in the process of being removed clandestinely or were meant for removal without payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already imposed penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
