TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....General of Anti-Evasion visited the factory premises of the appellant, M/s. Shyam Antenna (1st Appellants), seized certain goods and records and recorded statement of various individuals. The appellants are manufacturers of Transmission and Receiving apparatus of radio television and their parts falling under Chapter Headings 85.25, 85.27, 85.29, 85.36, 85.43 and 90.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As a result of stock verification, unaccounted goods valued at Rs. 3,76,700/- were seized from the appellant's premises. The stock verification was also conducted at the premises of M/s. Shyam Communications, the second appellant, which resulted in the seizure of unaccounted goods valued at Rs. 2,99,744/-. The said goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty. Absence of the concerned clerk is very meek defence. In the self-removal procedure, a trust is imposed on the manufacturer to ensure that the goods, which are fully manufactured, are brought in the record books. It is not their case that, the goods were not in a fully manufactured condition and they were not required to be entered in the relevant registers. The illicit activity of removal without payment of duty is facilitated, once goods remained unaccounted in the relevant books. The absence of any loading arrangements for the unaccounted goods at the time of visit does not automatically mean that such an intention could not have been executed at a latter point of time. It is also a fact that, the clearances effected to M/s. Shyam C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lieu of confiscation. Since, the Appellant No. 1 were apparently the owner of these goods, the redemption fines aforesaid is payable by them and there is no liability on the Appellant No. 2 to pay any fine or penalty, as can be perceived from facts of the case and adjudication order under reference. In view of above, the appeal of Appellant No. 2 is infructuous as they stand unaffected by the order appealed against and should not feel aggrieved. Thus appeal of Appellant No. 2 is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. 7. So far as appeal of the Appellant No. 1 is concerned, except for reducing the penalty of Rs. 1,03,954/- to Rs. 55,954/-, the rest of the order of the adjudicating authority was upheld. The appellants have challenged t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....msp;I find that, the pleas made by M/s. Shyam Communication has strong merits. While the Department may justify in effecting the seizure and confiscation of the goods holding that the said goods have been removed in a clandestine manner from the premises of M/s. Shyam Antenna based on the facts available, but since the property has been found in the premises of M/s. Shyam Communication Systems, the latter have to be provided the necessary evidence to justify that such goods are of contraband nature and are liable for confiscation and the appellants should be given an opportunity to refute those allegations before ordering their confiscation. Therefore, the appeal filed by M/s. Shyam Communication Systems is allowed by way of de novo remand.....