9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be much below the small scale exemption limit of ₹ 1.5 crores - also by appreciating the fact that there is no evidence indicating that goods in question were meant for clandestine activity, I find no justifiable reason for confiscation of the same - confiscation - set aside. Penalty - Held that: - the appellants have admitted their duty liability and even if the total clearance fall under ₹ 1.5 crore exemption limit, in terms of N/N. 8/2003, they have accepted the clandestine activity - penalty upheld - quantum reduced from ₹ 5 lakh to ₹ 2,00,000/-. Seizure and confiscation of the goods, at the premises of M/s. Sippy Auto Manufacturing Company - Held that: - as per the admission of appellant themselves, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .14, who conducted various searches and verifications. As a result of search of the factory, final product with the brand name of SIPPY , to the extent of ₹ 42 lakh were found to be in excess than the recorded balance. Under a belief that same were meant for clandestine removal, the officers seized the said goods. Simultaneously, searches at the premises of M/s. Sippy Auto Manufacturing Company, Delhi also resulted in recovery of various auto parts with the brand name of SIPPY , to the extent of ₹ 20 lakh approx. By entertaining a view that said SIPPY , brand auto parts stand cleared by M/s. Shivaji Industries, Delhi without payment of duty, the same were seized. The officers also scrutinized the records of M/s. Sippy Auto Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) with a prayer to reduce the redemption fine and penalties. However, it is seen that the appellant accepted their duty liability and did not put any challenge to the same. The order of the original adjudicating authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that though they have not challenged the duty confirmation, but the same was not on the basis of any evidence inasmuch as the raid on M/s. Sippy Auto Manufacturing Company at the time of seizure itself had disclosed that they were purchasing the SIPPY , brand auto parts and affixing the brand name SIPPY , on the same. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nario, as also by appreciating the fact that there is no evidence indicating that goods in question were meant for clandestine activity, I find no justifiable reason for confiscation of the same. Accordingly, the confiscation is set aside. As regards the penalty of ₹ 5 lakh, I find that the appellants have admitted their duty liability and even if the total clearance fall under ₹ 1.5 crore exemption limit, in terms of notification No. 8/2003, they have accepted the clandestine activity. As such, I am of the view that penalty is required to be imposed upon them. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the same from ₹ 5 lakh to ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only). 10. As rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
