9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch as they were also shifted by the concerned person, who had already left for Kolkata. The said person was called by the appellant and the records were produced by them on the very next day which stands rejected by the authorities below as an after thought - confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on both the appellant is not called for. However, I find that as the appellant have transferred the goods to the first floor without the permission of the officers which is a procedural and technical laps, the same requires imposition of token penalty, in terms of provision of Rule 27, which provides a maximum penalty of ₹ 5,000/-. Accordingly penalty on M/s. Vikram Prasad Vinod Kumar is reduced to ₹ 5,000 - Penalty reduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently released provisionally after taking cash security of Rs. 3,51,550/- and on execution of Bond. 4. On the above basis Show Cause Notice dated 03.11.2009 was issued proposing confiscation of the seized goods as also for imposition of penalty. The said show cause notice resulted in passing of an order by the Assistant Commissioner confiscating the seized excisable goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Further, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed upon the manufacturing unit under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed under Rule 27 for contravention of Rule 22. In addition penalty of Rs. 1,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the records were produced by them on the very next day which stands rejected by the authorities below as an after thought. 7. Apart from the fact that the goods were temporarily shifted to the first floor, for which the appellant has given an explanation, I find that there is no evidence on record to show that such shifting was with malafide intention or the appellant was in preparation to remove the goods subsequently. If the same were to be removed subsequently, the appellant could have the removed the same from the ground floor itself and there was no reason for them to first shift the goods to the first floor and then to remove them without payment of duty. In such a scenario, the explanation given by the appellant that as the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
