TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (6) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng a redemption fine of Rs. 45,000/- on the appellants apart from a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of menthol and DMO. On a visit of their manufacturing factory by the officers of the Central Excise on 12-2-92, the officers detected unaccounted storage of 30 drums of menthol, 8 drums of DMO and 12 drums of menthaoil (raw material). Department by show cause notice alleged contravention of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and asked the appellants to show cause against action under Rule 173Q. 3. The matter was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who found against the present appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order-in-original. Hence the present appeal. 4.&emsp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods were actually kept in the premises awaiting the availability of a truck for being transported to the consignee at Bombay. As regards the Menthaoil, he had explained that the said Menthaoil was purchased by M/s. Bhagat Impex Pvt. Ltd. Ld. Counsel submitted that both M/s. Laxmi Trading Corpn. and M/s. Bhagat Impex Pvt. Ltd. had, immediately after coming to know of the seizure of their goods submitted their claim for ownership of 28 drums of menthol containing 700 Kgs. (claimed by Laxmi Trading Corpn.) and 20 drums of Menthaoil (claimed by M/s. Bhagat Impex) supported by affidavits. The Additional Commissioner while adjudicating the matter had rejected the claims of the said two units. The adjudicating authority had rejected the claim of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed goods were recovered from the bonded store room of BFC. Since the Menthaoil was in the nature of raw material, the adjudicating authority had refrained from holding the same as liable to confiscation. However, on the basis of evidence before him he directed confiscation of 713 Kgs. of Menthol and 1370 Kgs. of DMO. 6. By order-in-appeal Commissioner (Appeals) found that there was nothing on record to prove the ownership of the seized goods with either M/s. LTC or M/s. BIPL. Collector (Appeals) further found that the appellants could not produce any evidence either before the adjudicating authority or before him to show that the drums in dispute were rented out. 7. Shri P. Sridhar, ld. Advocate, referred as to the letter wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of error of fact and law. 8. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. The main argument of the appellant is that 30 drums of Menthol and 8 drums of DMO seized by the Departmental officers from the appellant's premises as unaccounted actually belong to two different units operating from the same premises. As evidence in support of their claim that two other units were also operating from the said premises. ld. Counsel had relied on the letter dated 13-7-91 submitting the ground plan of the factory. However, on a perusal of the letter we find that there is nothing in the said letter to show that the appellants had let out any portion of their....