9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory and conducted verification of stock of goods and scrutiny of records. They found as follows :- (a) Finished goods valued at about Rs. 7.3 lakhs were kept in the Quality Control Room without accountal in RG 1 Register. (b) Invoice No. 299 dated 9-6-2000, whereunder admittedly no goods had been removed from the factory, was remaining uncancelled. (c) Certain finished goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposing to confiscate the seized goods under Rule 173Q and to impose penalties under Rules 173Q and 210. The original authority confiscated the goods with a Redemption Fine of Rs. 1 lakh and imposed a penalty of Rs. 17,000/- on the party for violations of various Rules. The appeal filed by the party against the decision of the original authority was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13th June, before they could cancel the invoice, the officers visited their factory and took custody of the invoice. In the circumstances, according to ld. Consultant, no ulterior motive could be attributed to the appellants in relation to the above invoice. Referring to the goods returned by customer, ld. Consultant admits that D3 intimation could not be given to the Department but submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arently, the finished goods used to undergo quality control in "Quality Control Room" and then move to the "finishing room" where they are packed, whereupon the goods are entered in RG1. In the instant case, this stage was not reached. Hence the goods were not liable to be seized. It would follow that the confiscation of these goods is not sustainable. A composite penalty of Rs. 17,000/- has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apparent that the show-cause notice was prepared with a confused mind. This confusion appears to have crept into the orders passed by both the authorities. Moreover, a composite penalty (without break-up) under two independent penal provisions is unsustainable in law. 4. For the reasons recorded above, I set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
