2015 (10) TMI 1309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Mishra, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalty on them. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant is engaged in manufacturing of Spanners and Wrenches. On 16-1-2009 the premises of the appellants were searched and it was found that there was a shortage of inputs of 114.880 Metric Tonnes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... wrongly availed by the appellants and a demand on duty of Rs. 16,120/- was sought to be confirmed for clearance of samples without payment of duty. The show cause notice was issued to demand the duty along with interest and imposition of penalty on both the appellants. The show cause notice was adjudicated. A sum of Rs. 10 lakhs paid by the appellant during the course of investigation was appropr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., first the goods were required to be held for liable for confiscation as the adjudicating authority has not held the case which are liable for confiscation. Therefore, penalty under Rule 26 on the appellants is not imposable. 4. On the other hand the ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. On perusal of the....