2007 (3) TMI 449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent. [Order]. - The appellant has challenged the appeal order dated 31-1-2005 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) imposing redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/-, duty liability of Rs. 34,560/- and penalty of the same amount as well as interest on the findings that there was clandestine manufacture and clearance of 24,000 bottles of packaged drinking water. The ld. Counsel appearing for th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellants' charge free acted under bias against the appellants in deciding Revenue's appeal before him. The ld. Counsel supported order of adjudication. He urged that although goods were found excess, those were not liable to seizure when such goods were inside the factory and there was no occasion of movement thereof without following due procedural of Excise Law and those goods have suffered duty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent certainly has force when there was no contradiction by Revenue. Ld. Counsel for the appellants in the course of hearing cited the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases (i) Kartar Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 443 (Tribunal), (ii) Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi II reported in 2002 ....