9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat credit, confirming the demand on other counts and confiscating engine and its accessories with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. 2. Shri Krishna Kant, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Maestro Motors Ltd., Appellant no. 1, manufacture motor vehicles; that they had appointed M/s. Dolphin Motors as their distributors, who in turn, have the net work of dealers for the cars; that the searches was carried out against them on the following counts : (i) they were under-valuing the motor cars as they were collecting Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 3 lakh over and above the price at which the goods were invoiced by them to M/s. Dolphin Motors (P) Ltd.; (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be confiscated; & (e) Why penalties should not be imposed on all the appellants. He mentioned that the Commissioner (Central Excise) passed the Order-in-Original No. 41/1996 dated 9-1-1997 in which the duty, as demanded in the show cause notice, was confirmed and the engine and its accessories were confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/-; that, besides, the penalty of Rs. 25 lakh was imposed on Appellant no. 1 and Rs. 10 lakh each was imposed on other three Appellants; that on appeal, filed by them, the Appellate Tribunal, vide Final Order Nos. 457-460/2003 dated 28-3-2003, remanded the matter by observing as under : "Since it is the case of the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not demanded in the show cause notice nor was considered by the Commissioner (Central Excise) in the earlier Adjudication Order dated 9-1-1997; that in addition, the Commissioner (Central Excise), under the impugned Order, has enhanced the penalties on all the appellants, except M/s. Dolphin Motors (P) Ltd., which is not permissible under the law. In this regard, he relied upon the decision in the case of Mittal Pipe Manufacuring Co. v. CCE, New Delhi, 2002 (146) E.L.T. 624 (T) wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that in remand proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority cannot fix penalty at amount higher than the penalty imposed prior to remand. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that as per the Final Order of the Tribunal, the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice in such a manner to confirm that the price on which the manufacturer would have sold in wholesale." Regarding demand of Rs. 81,136/-, in respect of the inputs cleared as such, the learned Advocate mentioned that the same is barred by limitation since they were filing RT 12 returns and invoices. Regarding confiscation of engine and its accessories, he contended that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. 5. Mrs. K.A. Mishra, learned SDR, reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order. 6.1 We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that in the show cause notice, the appellants we're not directed to show cause as to why duty should not be demanded from them on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of such demand where the inputs have not been used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Accordingly, we up-hold the demand of duty of Rs. 81,136/-. Similarly, the engine and its accessories have been removed from the factory premises. The only submission, put-forth by the appellants, is that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. We, therefore, agree with the learned SDR that the same are liable for confiscation. We, however, agree with the learned Advocate that the redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/-, fixed by the Commissioner, is on the higher side as the total value of the engine and its accessories is only 1.50 lakh. We, therefore, reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 15,000/-. 7. The Tribunal, vide Final Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
