9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- to ₹ 4,93,093/-, appellant are entitled to discharge 25% of the penalty equal to the duty, subject to the fulfilment of conditions laid down under section 11AC of CEA 1944 - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/11028-11031/2014 - 12040-12043/2017 - Dated:- 22-8-2017 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri D. K. Trivedi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S. N. Gohil, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Dr. D. M. Misra These four appeals are filed against common order-in-appeal No.RJT-EXCUS-000-APP-670-673-13-14 dated 23.01.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Rajkot. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposed of the appeals by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri D. K. Trivedi for the appellants submits that the observation made by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 15 of the impugned order is self-contradictory inasmuch as the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the demand of duty with interest and penalty on the manufacturer M/s Makson Ceramic Tiles and Others for the period prior to 01.03.2008. However, he has also confirmed the confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty for the clearances made prior to 01.3.2008 and seized in the trader's premises. Hence, confiscation of the goods is bad in law and accordingly personal penalty on Shri Daudayal Gupta canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Though, he has dropped the demand of duty, interest and penalty for the period prior to 01.03.2008, however, directed confiscation of the goods seized which were cleared from the factory prior to 01.03.2008, and found in the premise of the trader and seized under the reasonable belief that appropriate duty has not been paid on the said goods. The said confiscation and personal penalty on the trader, in my opinion is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Further, I find force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant that since the total demand of duty has been reduced from 30,31,383/- to ₹ 4,93,093/- they are entitled to discharge 25% of the penalty equal to the duty, subject to the fulfilment of conditions laid down un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
