9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 2002 by the Adjudicating Authority which was reduced to Rs. 75,000/- by the first Appellate Authority i.e. the learned Commissioner. The facts of the Appeal are stated in brief as follows. The appellants are engaged in manufacturing of kitchen and bath accessories of steel but were not registered with Central Excise. Based on an intelligence gathered, the factory premises of the appellants were visited by the Anti Evasion unit of the Central Excise, Delhi-I on 5.2.2016 and it was found that the appellant were engaged in the manufacturing of excisable goods in the name of 'NEFF' brand which was not registered in the name of the appellants and appellants were clearing these goods without paying central excise duty. So the Anti Evasion uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he request of the Appellant. Whereas the Adjudicating Authority accepted the contention of the Appellant and reduced the Central Excise duty to 2.06% and recalculated the same to Rs. 1,57,031/- including cess in place of Rs. 9,45,847/- including cess as raised by the department in the show cause notice and gave an option to the Appellant to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 1,12,650/- which come to around 15% of the total value of confiscated goods. On Appeal filed by the Appellant, the learned Commissioner vide impugned order dated 12.7.2018 reduced the Redemption Fine to Rs. 75,000/-, which is 10% of the value of the confiscated goods and set aside the penalty imposed on the proprietor of the Appellant. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted and deposited by the Appellant immediately after the passing of the Order-in-Original by the Adjudicating Authority. Had the department accepted the request of the Appellant and granted the benefit of notification No.01/2011 dated March 01, 2011 as amended vide Notification No.16/ 2012 CE, dated 17.3.2012, which was later on appreciated and accepted by the Adjudicating Authority, then the matter would have been settled even without the issuance of show cause notice. The Appellant had shown the bonafide by depositing the amount of duty along with interest and penalty and did not contest the same. In view of the facts of the present case this is not a fit case for confiscation of the goods and this case cannot be equated with the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
