9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dv. with effect from 07.12.2008 besides levy of education cess at 2% plus 1% of basic duty. The period of demand is from February 2008 to October 2009. On 16.11.2009 the Officers conducted surprise visit of the premises of the appellant. The appellant had obtained registration only on 21.11.2008 and had filed ER1 returns from February 2009 only. During the search operations, 1767 bundles of safety matches manufactured (lovely brand 140 bundles, Sun 447, Gorka-367, Tatu Car - 276, Dhalwar-149, Doda -86, Emmarald - 300 bundles) were seized by the officers. The value of the seized goods was arrived as Rs. 4,23,000/-. The goods were later provisionally released to the appellants on execution of Bank guarantee of Rs. 1,05,750/- and also on execu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant has already cleared the goods on payment of duty, further demand of duty on this count is incorrect. It is further submitted that there was no suppression of facts and therefore imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act, especially penalty equal to that of the duty in respect of 1767 bundles of safety matches is incorrect. The Ld. Counsel also argued that the appellant has not been given the option of paying reduced penalty of 25% by the authorities below. 3. The Ld. AR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reedy, JC, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5.1 In the grounds of appeal, para-4 (page16) the appellant's have stated that they are liable to pay duty amount of Rs. 3,74,740/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty payable on 1767 bundles of matches seized at the time of visit by the officers. These goods were provisionally released to the appellants and later cleared on payment of duty and therefore demand of duty on the same goods for the second time cannot sustain. Instead of confirming the duty demand on the seized goods and appropriating the duty already paid by the appellant has again passed order confirming the duty in this regard, which in our view cannot sustain. Thus, in our view, confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 32,202/- requires to be set aside, and has to be reconsidered. The adjudicating authority has also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 32,202/- on the seized goods. Taking note of the facts we are of the view that the said redemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
