9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F.O. No. A-255/KOL/2007 - Dated:- 2-3-2007 - [Order per]. - The appellant has challenged the appeal order dated 31-1-2005 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) imposing redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/-, duty liability of Rs. 34,560/- and penalty of the same amount as well as interest on the findings that there was clandestine manufacture and clearance of 24,000 bottles of packaged drinking w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances which made the appellants' charge free acted under bias against the appellants in deciding Revenue's appeal before him. The ld. Counsel supported order of adjudication. He urged that although goods were found excess, those were not liable to seizure when such goods were inside the factory and there was no occasion of movement thereof without following due procedural of Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry levy called for. This argument certainly has force when there was no contradiction by Revenue. Ld. Counsel for the appellants in the course of hearing cited the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases (i) Kartar Steels (Pot.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 443 (Tribunal), (ii) Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for probing source thereof and nothing proved that the goods suited out of suppressed purchase of input. So far this aspect is concerned, neither source nor mala fide were brought to record, that too when the excess goods did not jump out of the factory to hold evasion of duty. In such scenario, imposition of fine was un-called for and levy of penalty is undesirable when the element of evasion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
