9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vade payment of duty since, had it been sold to third parties, the same would have amounted to an act against the Government scheme. Even the Revenue has not made out any case that the goods so removed as above have been found to be diverted and thereafter to be sold elsewhere. Thus, the only infraction of removal of goods without prior permission, is only a procedural lapse, which cannot take the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kappir Village, Kandamangalam, Villupuram, Tamilnadu-605102 where, the appellant was stocking the excisable goods manufactured by it. It is thus alleged in the SCN that the appellant had cleared electric table fans without payment of excise duty and stored such non-duty paid electric table fans without prior permission from the proper jurisdictional Central Excise Officer and therefore, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntity but the supply was effected as per the terms of contract in retail form at each taluk office, etc., but accepted to clear the Central Excise Duty of ₹ 13,83,970/- demanded and also agreed to offer a bank guarantee of ₹ 28,00,000/-. 2. After considering the reply, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2017 ordered confiscation of the impugned electric ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the facts and circumstances involved? 4.2 Undisputedly the electric table fans manufactured by the appellant are specifically manufactured for the Government of Tamilnadu as per the Government Scheme and otherwise, the impugned goods have no marketability and cannot be sold in the open market. The manufactured fans could only be cleared against the orders by Tamilnadu State Civil Supplies C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -marketable. By this appeal, the appellant without questioning the legality of demand, has assailed only the redemption fine as well as the penalty and hence, in view of my discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice for a procedural breach would be best served by limiting the redemption fine to ₹ 50,000/- as well as penalty to ₹ 50,000/-. 5. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
