2010 (1) TMI 1069

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of goods under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Parts and Accessories of Arms and Ammunition falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 9305.00 and Mine assembly falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 9306.00. The appellant had filed the classification declaration with effect from 1-3-2001 claiming Central Excise Basic Duty @ 16% ad valorem as per First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and Special Excise Duty @ 16% Adv. as per the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 payable on their final product. The appellant was paying duty on fortnightly basis under Rule 8. On screening of records it w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....randum to the Budget proposals refered to the items chargeable to 16% Cenvat and 16% SED. These items include arms and ammunition for private use. He further submits that the proposal of Hon'ble Finance Minister in the Budget of 2001-2002 as also explanatory memorandum categorically specified that arms and ammunition would be chargeable to SED @ 16%. Further the Second Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff, covering the items attracting SED, was silent on this aspect for private use. The proposal of the Hon'ble Finance Minister in the Budget of 2001-2002 as also explanatory memorandum categorically specifies that arms and ammunition (for private use) would be chargeable to SED @ 16%. Further the second Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed. Although they are liable to be confiscated, redemption fine cannot be imposed as held by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & Cus, Nasik - 2009-TIOL-388-CESTAT-MUM-LB = 2009 (235) E.L.T. 623 (Tri.-LB) wherein it was held that "when the goods are not available or had not been cleared under bond redemption fine cannot be imposed." Accordingly, he prayed that the penalties and the redemption fine be waived. 4. Heard. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellants and find that the appellants were diligent in their duty to discharge duty liability and due to the confusion of the Budget Speech made by the Finance Minister during the Budget they could....