9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The aforesaid questions of law are not the questions of law and only are factual aspects of the matter. The appeal thus, has no merit and substance inasmuch as no question of law for interpretation by the High Court is involved and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed on this ground alone. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd prepared a Physical Stock Verification report (RUD No.1) in the presence of the authorised signatory of the appellant-assessee and two independent witnesses and also checked the daily stock register. In the surprise visit, different quantities of Detergent cake of various brands were found packed in the carton boxes bearing the name of the manufactures as M/s Sadhvi Gramodyog Samiti, Umran, Kanpur-Dehat and M/s Manoj Kumar Gupta and Co., Chiraura, Kanpur Dehat besides goods bearing the name of the party as manufacturer. 5. A show cause notice (herein after referred to as 'the SCN') dated 14.06.2004 was issued to the appellant-assessee as to why: (i) 5367 cartons of Detergent Cake beairng the name of other manufacturer and 69 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edeem the confiscated goods by making an payment of fine of ₹ 4,50,000/- on redemption. Penalty of ₹ 25,000/- was also imposed upon the appellant-assessee. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order-in-original dated 30.06.2008 passed in remand, the appelllant-assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur. The Commissioner vide order dated 30.09.2008 set aside the order of confiscation of seized goods and reduced the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 to ₹ 5,000/- on the ground that the appellant-assessee had only failed to account for goods produced or stored by them properly in their statutory records. 9. The revenue challenged the aforesaid order in ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
