9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taken into possession and thereafter the appellants' firm was visited by the excise officers and during verification of the records, the goods, valued at ₹ 2,34,177.00 were found in the factory without entering into record. The goods valued at ₹ 6,06,219.00 were seized from outside the factory and the appellants could not produce proof in respect of duty payment of these goods. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed the release of the goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2.16 lakh and confirmed the demand of ₹ 31,510.00. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of ₹ 31,510.00 under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. A separate penalty of Rs. te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 297 8. It was also contended by the appellants that composite penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act and Rule 173Q of the Rules is not sustainable in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Punjab Recorder Ltd. v. CCE. The appellants also contended that in this case the total demand is of ₹ 31,510.00 whereas the redemption fine of ₹ 2,34,177.00 was imposed, which was on higher side and they pleaded reduction in the redemption fine. 9. The contention of the revenue is that the goods found in the factory were not accounted for in any of the private or statutory records and, therefore, are liable for confiscation. The contention of the revenue is that the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the goods found in the factory, were accounted for, the goods are liable for confiscation. 12. In respect of arguments raised by the appellants that the goods cannot be confiscated as the goods were not available, the issue is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Weston Components Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere fact that the goods were released on the bond would not take away the power of the revenue authorities to levy redemption fine. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the goods were released to the appellants on execution of bond on the request made by the appellants. Therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation. 13. The appellants also objected the imposition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
