TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."Sikander Ghutka" printed laminated rolls detained by the department at the premises of Assessee's Transporter despite the fact that the transporter as well as his representative Mr. Sanjay Shukla specifically admitted that the said goods belong to the respondent-company and are cleared without payment of duty? c) Whether the CESTAT was justified in setting aside personal penalty on Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 above named without assigning any reason for the same? d) Whether the CESTAT was justified in setting aside the concurrent factual findings by two lower authorities without assigning any reason for the same? 3) The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: a) The respondent company is a manufacturer of printed laminated films rolls following under Chapter 39 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985. b) On 27/3/2002, during the course of preventive check, the officers of the appellant noticed that a quantity of 40147 Kgs. of printed laminated flexible films rolls valued at Rs.57.05 lacs was lying unaccounted in the factory premises. In a follow up action the Officers of the appellant a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inated films rolls lying in the godown of the transporter were confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.2 lacs. Penalty of Rs.10000/- upon respondent No.2 and of Rs.5,000/- upon respondent No.3 were also imposed. e) Being aggrieved, the respondent-company preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). On 20/1/2005 the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed the appeals of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. On the basis of the statement of the respondent company's Director and its Production Control Manager it was held that 40147 kgs. printed laminated films rolls were in a fully packed and in ready to remove condition which had not been accounted for in the statutory records. Further, no records of manufacture/production of printed laminated films rolls were available in support of its manufacture. Further, on the basis of the statement of a employee of the transporter as well as transporter himself, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) concluded that 9120 kgs. of "Sikandar Gutka" printed laminated rolls found in the transporter's godown were removed from the factory of the respondent No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sanket Food Products Private Limited has force. There is no discussion as to why the Tribunal does not accept the concurrent findings of the authorities below holding the respondent-assessee liable to duty of Rs.2.57 lacs in respect of 9120 kgs. of "Sikandar Gutka" printed laminated film rolls found in the transporter's godown; and c) Penalty of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- upon respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were also set aside without assigning any reason. In the circumstances, he submits that the order of the Tribunal be set aside to the extent it has dropped the duty demand of Rs.2.57 lacs upon respondent No.1, reduction of redemption fine and setting aside the penalty imposed upon respondent No.2 and 3. The matter be sent to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law on the above three issues. 5) Mr. M. H. Patil, Counsel for the respondent in support of the impugned order submits as under: a) There was no justification for confiscation of 40147kgs. of printed laminated flexible film rolls as the goods are still in the factory and mere non accounting in the statutory record does not lead to confiscation. b) The r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kgs. printed laminated flexible film rolls found in the respondent-assessee's factory are liable to confiscation or not. The finding that they are confiscated is a concluded issue before us. The respondent No.1 has made no grievance of the same by filing an appeal before this Court. Consequently, the above issue is no longer open to debate. 7) We find that the Tribunal while upholding the confiscation of the printed laminated flexible film rolls has held as under: "As such I hold that the confiscation of the goods was justified. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the redemption fine of Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)". However, there are no reasons provided by the Tribunal as to the facts and circumstances which had led the Tribunal to reduce redemption fine from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.50,000/- only. One is left to guess what possible facts and circumstances justified the reduction of redemption file from Rs.2 lakhs to 50,000/-. The Tribunal is expected to give reasons in support of its order and merely stating (keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case) and reducing the redemption fine wou....