Judgment corrects errors, validates seizure legality, orders fine adjustment. Advocate's points acknowledged, jurisdictional issues disputed.

The judgment corrected factual errors in the Tribunal's order, upheld the legality of the seizure and Show Cause Notices, validated the proceedings by the Bhubaneswar Collectorate, and ordered the re-determination and adjustment of fines, penalties, and duty amounts based on the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal acknowledged errors pointed out by the Advocate, disagreed on jurisdictional issues related to seizure, found no illegality in the Bhubaneswar notice, and directed the re-determination of duty and adjustment of penalties within three months.

---

---

Issues:
1. Correction of factual errors in the Tribunal's order.
2. Jurisdictional issues related to seizure and issuance of Show Cause Notices by different Collectorate officers.
3. Legality of proceedings and orders issued by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Bhubaneswar.
4. Adjustment of fine, penalty, and duty based on the Tribunal's findings.

Analysis:

1. The judgment primarily addresses the correction of factual errors in the Tribunal's order. The learned Advocate pointed out several errors, such as incorrect references to notifications and misinterpretation of words in the order. These errors were acknowledged and corrected by the Tribunal to ensure accuracy in the record.

2. The jurisdictional issues raised by the Advocate relate to the seizure of goods by officers from Visakhapatnam Collectorate and the subsequent issuance of Show Cause Notices by the Bhubaneswar Collectorate. The Advocate argued that the seizure by Visakhapatnam officers was illegal as they were not the proper officers due to the location of the goods. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the seizure was justified as the goods were found within Visakhapatnam's jurisdiction. The validity of the Show Cause Notice issued by Visakhapatnam was not addressed in this judgment.

3. The legality of the proceedings and orders issued by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Bhubaneswar was also contested. The Advocate cited judgments to support the claim that the Show Cause Notice issued by Bhubaneswar was improper due to a prior notice issued by Visakhapatnam. The Tribunal, however, found no illegality in the Bhubaneswar notice, stating that the proceedings leading to the Additional Collector's order were lawful based on the allegations of duty evasion.

4. Lastly, the judgment addresses the adjustment of fine, penalty, and duty based on the Tribunal's findings. The Advocate highlighted discrepancies in the adjudicating authority's order regarding the appropriation of fines and penalties from the security furnished by the appellants. The Tribunal directed the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, to re-determine the duty, adjust the penalties accordingly, and finalize the proceedings within three months.

Overall, the judgment clarifies factual errors, upholds the legality of seizure and Show Cause Notices, validates the proceedings by the Bhubaneswar Collectorate, and orders the re-determination and adjustment of fines, penalties, and duty amounts based on the Tribunal's findings.

---