2015 (5) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The appellants were engaged in manufacture of Polyester Texturised Yarn classifiable under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 09.02.2001, the Central Excise officers visited their factory premises and found shortage of the finished goods. A show cause notice dt.18.08.2005 was issued proposing demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,53,984.00 on 4,01,385.800 kgs of Texurised Yarn cleared clandestinely. It has also proposed demand of interest and imposition of penalty along with confiscation of the goods, which are clandestinely removed by the appellant. 4. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 11,53,984.00 along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 11....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Regarding the confiscation of the goods, it is seen from the adjudication order that the goods are not available and therefore, the confiscation of the goods is not sustainable. The appellant referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Surat-II Vs Kay Bee Tax Spin Ltd - 2014 (305) ELT 132 (Tri-Ahmd). So, the confiscation and and imposition of redemption fine are not sustainable. 7. Regarding imposition of penalty on the Authorised Signatory-cum-Partner of the Appellant No.1, the learned Authorised Representative raised serious objection. He submits that it is settled by various decisions of the Tribunal that penalty is imposable on the partner even when penalty is imposed on partnership firm. In this context, he drew att....