2002 (6) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing the goods manufactured by them with the option to redeem the same on payment of fine. 2. Shri K.L. Handa, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants manufacture iron and steel products; that the Central Excise Officers on 11-10-1991 seized 11.575 M.T. of roughly shaped pieces valued at Rs. 98,000/- while being transported in a Truck No. 4959 on the ground that no duty had been paid at the time of clearance from the factory; that these goods were earlier received back for reprocessing for which D3 declarations had been filed by them; that they had maintained Form V. Register (Account of duty paid goods received for reprocessing and repair). On the other hand, Ms. Neeta Lal Butalia, learned Sr. Departmental Representative, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he back of the factory; that the defects had not been pointed out by the Appellants. In view of this, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Adjudicating Authority about these goods liability to confiscation. However, we agree with the learned Consultant that the amount of fine is on the higher side. We accordingly, reduce the amount of fine from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. 4.1 The learned Consultant, further, mentioned that the officers had drawn four samples out of the quantity of goods seized from the truck and factory; that quantity of 5.1 MT seized from factory on examination was found to be stainless steel material attracting higher rate of Central Excise duty; that the Adjudicating Authority has conf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eel containing, by weight, 1.2% or less of carbon and 10.5% or more of chromium, with or without other elements." The learned Sr. Departmental Representative, further, submitted that the Appellants have not disputed the Production Reports and as such, the duty has been demanded on the basis of their own documents. 4.3 After considering the submissions of both the sides, we find substance in the submissions made by learned Sr. Departmental Representative, that the daily production reports maintained by the Appellants themselves had revealed that the 387.931 MT products shown as 'other alloy steel' was stainless steel products. These Reports have not been challenged by the Appellants. They have not disputed their existence and resumpt....