2011 (7) TMI 747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue   Per Dr. C. Satapathy: Heard both sides at length. 2. Ms. Seema Jain, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants in Appeal No.E/2918-2919/09 submits that the appellants are not disputing the duty liability in respect of  the impugned goods found in the premises of the factory of the appellants and in the factory of the job workers of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dy separate penalty equivalent to  duty amount  has been imposed on M/s Natraj Plast Industries Ltd. of which the appellant is only a Director. 4. Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants in Appeal No.E/2932-2933/2009 pleads that the penalties imposed in these two cases are equal being Rs.50,000/- in each case whereas the quantity of goods seized were worth&nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....count all the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and there are adequate reasons given  for confirmation of the duty demanded along with interest. As such, there is no case for reduction in the duty amount confirmed. However, the claim made by the learned Advocate Ms. Seema Jain regarding part payment of the duty amount requires to be considered and the same requires to be adjusted a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... value of the confiscated goods and hence the same requires no further reduction. However, the penalty imposed on the fourth appellant in Appeal No.E/2933/2009 requires  proportionately to be reduced taking into account the lower value of the confiscated goods. Accordingly, I reduce the same to Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only). 9. In the result, Appeal No.E/2918/2009 is rejected bu....