9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 - Final Order No. 54599/2016 - Dated:- 28-10-2016 - Shri Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri K.S. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant Shri G.R. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) for the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The appellant is before us against order dated 01/01/2013 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e held that non-accountal of excisable product attract the provision of Rule 25 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and accordingly ordered the confiscation of the same with an option to redeem the confiscated goods on fine of ₹ 4,00,000/- 2. On appeal, the said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he registration certificate required under section 6 of the Act; or (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules with intent to evade payment of duty, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or a registered dealer, as the case may be, shall be liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduct. We find the lower Authorities fell in error in applying the provisions of Rule 25 in respect of Betel Nut which is not an excisable goods in the form in which it was seized. Further, the justification recorded in the impugned order is to the effect that the appellants failed to submit statements regarding details of Betel Nut and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 12 (2) of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
