TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent: Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative Per: P.K. Das 1. These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s Rishabhdev Techocable Ltd was engaged in the manufacture of Electric Cable Wires, classifiable under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion order. The Adjudicating authority also confiscated the goods and as the goods were not available for confiscation, imposed the redemption fine of Rs. 26 lakhs and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty on the Appellant No.1 and a personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Kamal Golecha Director of the Appellant No.1 Company. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication order.&nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....md). He further submits that the penalty on the co-noticee should be dropped. He further submits that that the goods are not available and therefore, the confiscation is bad in law and imposition of redemption fine cannot be sustained. He relied upon the following decisions:- a) M/s Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs Commr. of C. Excise, Nasik 2009 (235) ELT 627 (Tri-LB) b) M/s Munjal Showa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be given if the option was not given to the Appellant earlier. I agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate that the goods are not available and therefore, confiscation and imposition of redemption fine are not sustainable. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd (supra) held that the goods cannot ....