9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in- original regarding confiscation of the goods, imposition of redemption fine and of penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. The learned SDR has contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the earlier remand order of the Tribunal as well as the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Weston Components Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi - 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides. 4. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that on 11-1-94 the Preventive Officer of the Central Excise intercepted the light commercial vehicles carrying goods of the respondents (100 Gensets), but the drivers of the vehicles on demand, could not produce the original documents under the cover of which those were cleared by the respondents from the factory premises. They only showed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led that even if the seized goods were not available for confiscation at the time of passing the adjudication order on the ground that same had been provisionally released to the owner, still redemption fine could be imposed in respect of those goods if found to be liable for confiscation. For appreciating this proposition of law and applying the same to the present case, the Tribunal remanded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparation and production of original documents, did not absolve the respondents from their liability for the contravention of Rule 52A. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the law and as such the impugned order passed by him cannot be sustained. 5. In the light of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
