9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion can be inferred to be unaccounted stock with the object of removal thereof without payment of duty. Appellant s only plea all along was that mere unaccountal of the stock found does not make the appellant liable to duty or penal consequence. Adjudicating authority had every reason to believe that the appellant s goods were liable to confiscation and redeemable on payment of redemption fine. Therefore, both seizure and imposition of redemption fine is confirmed. Present case being the case of tobacco product which has higher margin in the market, there shall be no interference to the adjudicated fine since the appellant did not come out to show the extent of margin earned in dealing with Tobacco products. Therefore, there is no necess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is challenged in absence of any specific prohibition in law. The investigating authority may be adjudicating authority. He is not precluded to act as such and not prohibited to exercising the power of adjudication. Therefore, appellant s plea on such count is dismissed. 6. When the accounts were not updated and excess quantity of goods were found during inventory, preponderance of probability was in favour of Revenue to hold possible circumstance of clandestine removal. In absence of any reconciliation statement of the excess goods found, it was not open to the appellant to challenge that mere absence of the partner or the staff shall not bring the appellant to the ambit of adjudication. Therefore, excess branded chewing tobacco found by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case and the fitness of the fact situation. Therefore, no formula of 10% can be applied in the present case. Therefore, the amount of redemption fine imposed by learned Adjudicating Authority is confirmed. 8. Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Delhi IV Vs. Achiever International 2012 (286) ELT 180 (Del.) has held that discretion is no doubt vested with the authority to release the goods on payment of redemption fine. But such discretion must be exercised in a just and fair manner on the basis of facts and has to be exercised after recording cogent and relevant reasons. There should not be failure of justice or grave injustice. Statutory discretion is not usually absolute. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
