1998 (6) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder-in-Original No. MP(4/97)17 of 1997, dated 28-10-1997 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad wherein he has confiscated the seized stock of M.S. Ingots and Runners and Risers but gave an option to redeem the said seized goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- upon the appellants under Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants' factory was checked by the officer of D.G. Anti Evasion, Kanpur in the night of 3/4-9-1996 on the basis of information from Income Tax Department. On physical verification 306.9 M.T. of M.S. Ingots and 56.00 M.T. of Runners and Risers were found in the facto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... evade the payment of duty clandestinely. They further stated that ingots are manufactured weighing 94 kgs. each, however, if the molten material is less than the full capacity of moulds which are not fully filled, the result would be shortage of weight and as such an average weight of individual Ingots as 92 kgs. instead of 94 kgs. had been recorded in the RG 1 since about one year and the difference of 2 kgs. per Ingots reached 138.065 M.T. of Ingots and 24.810 M.T. of Runners and Risers. They also stated that their factory had always been checked and not a single case of clandestine removal has been detected against them and as such the order of the Dy. Commissioner is manifestly erroneous and completely overlooks the basic distinction o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....96 (Tribunal). This view has been further substantiated by the Order of CEGAT in the case of Kartar Steels (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh reported in 1997 (18) RLT 138 (CEGAT-NB) [1997 (93) E.L.T. 443 (Tribunal)]. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants have removed the goods without payment of duty or there was any preparation having been made for such removal. In these circumstances the confiscation of seized goods and granting an option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) is not sustainable in the light of the Tribunal's Order referred to above. 6. The adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 of Central E....