9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of provision of Central Excise Act and has proceeded to impose penalty. The participation of the appellant firm is not established by cogent evidence. There is no evidence to link the appellant firm with the clandestine activities of M/s.B.S.Enterprises. Penalty was imposed upon the partner Shri Virender Kumar which was paid by him. Shri Virender Kumar did not file appeal. - evidence placed and the judicial decisions, the penalty of ₹ 80,000/- imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 is unsustainable and the same is set aside. Taking into consideration, the argument of the learned counsel for appellant that after abatement the duty liability of the seized goods would only come to ₹ 21,365/-, the levy of redemption fine of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the appellants shop premises, and imposed penalty of ₹ 5,000/- on Shri Virender Kumar under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Revenue filed appeal challenging release of the seized goods and against the penalty imposed being very low. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 13.10.2013 set aside the order to release the seized goods (footwear) and ordered confiscation of the same and levied redemption fine of ₹ 80,000/-. Further penalty of ₹ 80,000/- was imposed upon the appellant firm. Aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that as M/s.B.S.Enterprises had not paid duty, the goods seized were liable for confiscation and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese goods after abatement would be only ₹ 5,18,573/-. The duty liability of the same would then be ₹ 21,365/- only. That therefore levy of redemption fine of ₹ 80,000/- is unjustified. 6. Against this, learned DR submitted that the MRP affixed on the goods was more than ₹ 250 which were excisable goods. M/s.B.S.Enterprises cleared the goods without payment of duty, and that the appellant is deliberately involved in the act of evasion of duty. Learned DR contended that penalty imposed upon Shri Virender Kumar, partner of the appellant herein by the primary adjudicating authority was paid by him. The fact that Shri Virender Kumar paid the penalty would establish that the appellant firm was involved in the act of ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, evidence placed and the judicial decisions, the penalty of ₹ 80,000/- imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 is unsustainable and the same is set aside. Taking into consideration, the argument of the learned counsel for appellant that after abatement the duty liability of the seized goods would only come to ₹ 21,365/-, the levy of redemption fine of ₹ 80,000/- in my view, is on the higher side. The same is reduced to ₹ 40,000/-. 8. Given the above, the impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant firm and reducing the redemption fine to ₹ 40,000/-. 9. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. (pronounced in the open court on 04/09/2015) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
