TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....team of Central Excise preventive officers headed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-IV, Division-II, Silvassa visited the premises of Shri Khatu Shyam Industries on 16.6.09 and conducted searches in the presence of two independent panchas, Shri Sanjay Jha, Authorised Signatory and Shri Manish Ramavtar Agarwal, Parnter. Therefore, the officers in the presence of panchas and Shri Sushil Pandey, authorised signatory, physically verified the stock of inputs i.e. M.S. Ingots, finished goods i.e. TMT bars and waste and scrap in the factory of the appellant unit and found (1) 29.265 MT of inputs i.e. M.S. Ingots, (2) 69.593 MT of finished goods i.e. TMT bars (3) 14.605 MT of waste and scrap excess to the recorded balance. The total valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty amounting to Rs.2,33,160/- and imposed penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-. The goods valued at Rs.28,29,601/- lying in the factory premises unaccounted seized and provisionally released have been confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Assistant Commissioner has also imposed penalties of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on Shri Manish Ramavtar Agarwal, partner of M/s. Shri Khatu Shyam Industries and Shri Sanjay Jha, authorised signatory of M/s. Shri Khatu Shyam Industries respectively. 4. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant firm and the individuals preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority did not agree with the contentions raised by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty on the partner. As regards the penalty imposed on the authorised signatory, it is his submission that such penalty imposed is also incorrect as there is no role attributed to the individual for imposition of penalty. 6. Ld. Additional Commissioner, (A.R.) would submit that the orders of the lower authorities are correct as there is a clear cut admission on the part of the partner as to purchasing of ingots from open market and clandestine manufacturing and clearance of the finished goods as well as scrap. He also submits that there was an excess stock of finished goods lying in the factory premises which has not been properly accounted for and hence liable for confiscation. 7. I have considered the submissions made by both si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n my view seems to be excessive. In order to meet the ends of justice, the redemption fine imposed on the seizure of the finished goods as well as the scrap needs to be reduced which in my view should be Rs.1 lakh as against Rs.3 lakhs imposed by the lower authorities. The impugned order to that extent is modified and the redemption fine is reduced from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.1 lakh. 12. As regards the penalty imposed on the partnership firm, I find that the ends of justice would meet when the penalty is reduced from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.1 lakh as I have already held that finished goods and scrap which were lying unaccounted in the statutory books are liable for confiscation. Accordingly, the penalty which has been imposed on the partnership firm ....