Redemption fine and penalty reduced on appeal due to excessive amounts. Appellant's compliance with exemption limits acknowledged.

The Tribunal found the redemption fine and penalty excessive for mere non-maintenance of records. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 50,000, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000. The impugned order was modified accordingly, recognizing the appellant's compliance with exemption limits despite the lapse in record-keeping.

---

---

Issues: Confiscation of seized goods, quantum of redemption fine, quantum of penalty imposed.

Confiscation of Seized Goods: The appellant's factory was visited by Central Excise officers who found finished goods worth a certain amount. The goods were seized under Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules on the belief that they were unaccounted for. The Assistant Commissioner ordered confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. Both the appellant and the department appealed. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appellant's appeal but allowed the department's appeal, enhancing the penalty. The appellant challenged the confiscation and the quantum of redemption fine.

Quantum of Redemption Fine: The appellant, an SSI unit, argued that they were within exemption limits and not required to file declarations or obtain Central Excise registration. They contended that the redemption fine and penalty imposed were too harsh, considering they were only required to maintain private records, not statutory ones. The appellant sought a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the appellant was availing SSI exemption and had not crossed the threshold limits for filing declarations or obtaining Central Excise registration. While the appellant should have maintained some records, there was no evidence of underreporting or ineligibility for SSI exemption. The Tribunal found the redemption fine and penalty excessive for mere non-maintenance of records. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 50,000, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000. The impugned order was modified accordingly, recognizing the appellant's compliance with exemption limits despite the lapse in record-keeping.

---