9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri Pramod Kumar, it m ld. JDR for the Revenue. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. As per the facts on record, the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Corrugated boxes and partitions cleared the same weighing 13,399.82 kgs. value at Rs. 2,78,993/- to another premises at D-95, MIDC, Jalgaon belonging to M/s. Maharani Plast without payment of Central Excise duty and without the cover of Central Excise invoice, thereby suppressing the facts from the knowledge of the department. The departmental officers have, therefore, seized the said goods on which Central Excise duty involved is Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evade any Central Excise duty and non-payment of the same is only due to un awareness of the legal provisions. (h) Appellant was under the bona fide belief that no separate registration is required, where two or more premises are actually part of the same factory, but are segregated by public road. (I) The seized goods were provisionally released by the DCCEX, Jalgaon on execution of B-11 bond for Rs.3,25,000/- along with cash security of Rs. 82,000/-. The appellant after release of the said goods cleared the same of payment of duty and, therefore, there is no question of demanding duty amounting to Rs. 45,533/-. (j) As there is no mens rea in non-payment of duty, no penalty can be imposed upon the appellant. (k) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that the removal was for storing purposes; he also observed that being an SSI unit the appellant lacked the knowledge of procedure of Central Excise act and rules. (2) The appellant cleared the impugned goods under invoice on payment of duty in the month of December, 2005 before the issue of the SCN on 3-2-2006 and passing the OIO dt. 28-5-2006. Having observed as 1 above, there was no reason to confirm the duty, confiscate the goods and demand interest. In fact, the Adjudicating Authority has not given any ground in passing the operating part of his order in obvious contradiction to his observations.I set aside this part of the order. (3) A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed under Rule 25 of CER, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
