2015 (3) TMI 551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case it is an admission by the appellant themselves that the impugned goods are non-basmati rice, therefore, I uphold the order of confiscation of impugned goods. As these goods have been taken back to the town, therefore considering the factual matrix of the case, I further reduce the Redemption Fine from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 2.50,000 and reduce the penalty to ₹ 50,000 - Decided pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by confiscating the seized goods and allowed to be redeemed on payment of Redemption Fine of ₹ 7,00,000/- and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,25,000/- on the appellant. The order or appropriation of bank guarantee was also passed. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Redemption Fine was reduced to ₹ 5,00,000/- and penalty to ₹ 75,000/-. Against that order, appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He further submits as per Circular no. 33/08 dated 30.09.2008, the goods are required to be sent to Agmark testing centre for testing and analysis and same has not been done in this case. Therefore, the test report of Dy. Chief Chemist cannot be relied. In these circumstances, he prayed that the order of confiscation and consequently imposing Redemption Fine and penalty is to be set aside. In the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X