9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacturing of safety gears (helmets) falling under Chapter Heading 650610 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On gathering intelligence, the Preventive Unit Hqrs., Belgaum intercepted two three-wheeled autos carrying helmets from the factory of the appellant on 4.3.2010. On verification, it was found that there was no accompanying invoice from the manufacturing factory of the appellant and hence, the helmets along with the two vehicles were seized by the officers. Further, an excess quantity of 3335 Nos. of helmets were found unaccounted in the factory of the appellant and said helmets were also seized by the officers on 4.3.2010. The enquiry revealed that the appellant had intended to clear 3727 Nos. safety gears (helmets) valued at Rs. 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the factory and the balance 3335 Nos. of helmets seized by the Department cannot be considered as completely finished goods as the final inspection were due from these helmets and also the said helmets were not cleared from the factory and hence, no duty liability arises. He further submitted that the goods were not liable for confiscation as the appellant have not violated any provisions of Central Excise Rules and therefore, the redemption fine of Rs. 3,24,592/- imposed on the appellant are not justified. He also submitted that penalty of Rs. 2,10,183/- imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and appropriated from bank guarantee is not correct as the duty demanded was appropriated before issuance of show-cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for which no order has been passed by the authorities. Learned counsel further tried to justify the excess helmets numbering 3335, by contending that the same were not ready for clearance and were kept for inspection and packaging and therefore, the same were not recorded in the RG-1 Register. Learned Commissioner (A) has considered all these aspects and after considering the submissions of the appellant, learned Commissioner (A) has upheld the OIO. Further, I find that the original authority has imposed the redemption fine of Rs. 3,24,592/- whereas the duty involved on the goods were to the tune of Rs. 2,11,530/- which according to me is on a higher side and therefore, I reduce the redemption fine to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
