9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine 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 water. The ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that when the adjudication order made the appellants' charge free, Revenue's appeal against that order, is baseless and that too th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 Law and those goods have suffered duty on removal in due course. 2. Ld. DR for the Revenue supported order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and prayed that such order is sustainable in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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, New Delhi II reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 466 (Tri. - Del.), (iii) Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur reported in 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (Tribunal), (iv) Durga Trading Co. v. Commr. of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 of duty was not brought to record.
4. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order-in- appeal is set aside.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 2-3-2007)
X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
