9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not available and therefore, confiscation and imposition of redemption fine are not sustainable. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd (2009 (1) TMI 124 - CESTAT MUMBAI) held that the goods cannot be confiscated when not available, redemption fine is not imposable. - The confiscation and imposition of redemption fine are set aside. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/453,454/2009; E/Extn/14670-14671/2014 - Order No. A/10293-10294 / 2015 - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, J. For The Appellant: Shri P.M. Dave, Advocate For The Respondent: Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative Per: P.K. Das 1. These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Appellants fairly submits that the Appellants already paid the entire amount of duty before passing the Adjudication order, in order to avoid further litigation. They are not contesting the demand of duty. He submits that the Adjudicating authority should have given the option of payment of 25% of duty as per the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submits that the penalty imposed on the Director of the Appellant company would not be sustained on the ground that the penalty under Section 11AC was imposed on the Appellant company. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sonam Clock Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot - 2012 (278) ELT 263 (Tri-Ahmd). He further su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ispat Pvt. Ltd (supra) held that the goods cannot be confiscated when not available, redemption fine is not imposable. 6. Regarding the penalty on the Director of the Appellant Company, I find that both the sides cited the case laws in their favour. In any event, I agree with the learned Advocate that the quantum of penalty on the Director is excessive, when Section 11AC was invoked on the Appellant Company. 7. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is modified in so far as the demand of duty along with interest and penalty of equal amount is upheld. However, as the Adjudicating authority has not given option to pay the penalty of 25% of the duty under Section 11AC of the said Act, the option is given to the assessee t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
