2004 (1) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. 7,61,305/- seized during the said punchanama proceedings in terms of the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants were given an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. Besides penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed. 2. The appellant's challenge to the aforesaid order is on the following premises : "(i)      Assuming without admitting that there were goods in excess of the recorded balance in the RG-1 Register, the same were lying in the factory premises only. There was no attempt on the part of the appellants to remove the same without payment of duty. In fact, there is no evidence that the appellants had ever removed any goods without payment of duty. The goods f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nalty on the appellants. In any event, the penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh imposed on the appellants is too harsh and excessive and the quantum of penalty is totally disproportionate to the lapse, if any on the part of the appellants. The order of penalty being harsh, excessive and disproportionate deserves to be set aside. (iv)      In regard to the shortages, it is submitted that the appellants have already paid duty of Rs. 1,23,384/- by debit in RG 23A Part-II vide entry No. 1324, dated 8-3-1996 even before issue of the show cause notice. The appellants have, therefore, no objection to the said amount being confirmed. It is, however, submitted that these shortages were not due to unauthorized removal but on account of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 384/- and the demand for balance amount was not confirmed. It is also noticed from the order-in-original that, the Commissioner has observed that, noticee (Appellants) have made no attempt to furnish any clarification that, the excess goods were actually certain rejects which were entered in the RG-1, as removed for re-melting and were available in the factory. Similarly, I notice that, the provisions of Rule 173Q have been correctly applied for ordering confiscation and imposition of redemption fine besides imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh for the aforesaid violations. 5. The challenge to ground of confiscation is that, since the goods were actually present in the factory, there was no attempt of removal. Hence confiscation is not prop .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X