TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (6) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....51 and 00952 respectively all dated 29-11-2000 issued by M/s. Raj International, Orai along with respective builty Nos. 28, 29 and 30 all dated 29-11-2000 issued by M/s. R.K. Road Lines, Orai showing consigner as M/s. Raj International, Orai. 3. Statements of truck drivers were recorded on 29-11-2000 and they stated that they were not aware of the godown of M/s. Raj International. They had loaded the goods from the factory of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Orai and they have only the challans of M/s. Raj International and builty. In the follow up action, the officers visited the premises of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys Pvt. Ltd. at 6.45 hours on 29-11-2000 but the factory gate was not opened by the Security Guard and he informed that no C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scation. He ordered confiscation of the seized quantity of M.S. ingots but allowed these to be redeemed on a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. He imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 173Q(1)(a), (b) and (d) of Central Excise Rules. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on Shri Saurav Jain, Director of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys Ltd. under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, besides imposing penalty on other concerned persons. He also confiscated the seized trucks and allowed these to be redeemed on a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each by appropriating the security deposited. 5. Appeals were filed by M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Saurav Jain, Director before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r a violation of section of particular statute. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Processors v. UOI [1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.)] and it was pleaded that no penalty is imposable on Shri Jain. 8. The departmental representative for Revenue pleaded that the lower authorities have correctly confiscated the goods and imposed penalty on both the appellants as the goods were cleared without payment of Central Excise duty from the manufacturing unit and when the officers visited the unit, no records were made available in the factory to show that the goods were cleared on payment of duty. The production of bills of M/s. Raj International for covering the goods clearly shows that the goods were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvoice book and other record was available in the factory when the officers visited, it shows that no duty there was paid on clearance of the goods from the factory. Therefore, violation of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules is also established. Therefore, these goods were cleared from the factory of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys without payment of duty and these are liable for confiscation under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The goods were therefore, correctly confiscated. The redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the goods valued at Rs. 5,27,275/- is reasonable. The penalty has also been correctly imposed on M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys. 10. Shri SauravJain, Director of the company, who was responsible for payment of duty, has f....