9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that two stenter machines were sealed by the Central Excise officers, in terms of the request made by them, but the same were otherwise working. The Director of the mill, Shri Mahendra Kumar Sancheti stated that they had cut the iron chains from both the sealed stenters and utilized them for manufacture of processed fabrics, without intimating the Department. Accordingly an offence case was booked and 172 pieces of processed fabrics manufactured on the said two stenter machines were seized. The appellant also paid the duty amount. 2. In the backdrop of the above facts, proceedings were initiated against them for imposition of penalty and for confiscation of the goods. The said show cause notice was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e remaining amount shall be paid by the end of that month. 4 ………… 5. If an independent processor fails to pay the amount of duty or any part thereof by the date specified in sub-rule 3, he shall be liable to, (i) ………... (ii) a penalty equal to an amount of duty outstanding from him at the end of such month or rupees five thousand, whichever is greater. 5. In terms of the above rule, an independent processor of textile fabrics, working under the compounded levy scheme is required to deposit 50% of the amount of duty payable for a calendar month by 15th of that month and the remaining amount is required to be paid by the end of that month. Sub-rule 5 of Rule 96ZQ which is a penal provision, lays down that if the amount of duty is not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Jt. Commissioner that the appellant is a habitual offender. Having adjudged the appellant's liability to penal action, we hold that the goods seized were liable to confiscation. However, we reduce redemption fine to Rs.40,000/- and penalty to Rs.3.10 lakhs inasmuch as 50% of the dues even for the month of the December, were required to be deposited at the end of the month. It further stands admitted by Shri Sancheti, Director that the breaking of the seal was done at his instance and he was aware of the same. Accordingly, we hold him liable for personal penalty, but reduce the penalty to Rs. 40,000/-. But for the above modification in the quantum of redemption fine and penalties, the appeal is otherwise rejected. (Pronounced in Court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
