TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 738
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeal dated 06.03.2013 on the same issue. Hence, all the three appeals are taken up together. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are a partnership firm. The first appellant is a Central Excise registered unit is engaged in manufacturing of Umbrella Frames falling under Chapter 66; the second appellant is manufacturing Tube on job work basis for the first appellant; and the third appellant is a godown premises belonging to the same partnership firm. All the three are located at separate and different addresses, but at Umbergaon, District Valsad. On the basis of intelligence that appellants are indulging in evasion of Central Excise duty, the department carried out simultaneous searc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Rules, 2002 on the first appellant. No penalty was imposed on the other two appellants and partners of the appellant firms, though proposed in show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, all the three appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by the impugned OIA upheld the order of confiscation of the goods seized at the premises of the second and third appellants alongwith imposition of redemption fine but he reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 15,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-, on the goods seized at the premises of the third appellant. He also upheld the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority on the first appellant but reduced the same from Rs. 12,00,000/- to Rs. 7,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he liability of the goods for confiscation (and redemption fine in lieu), and liability to penalty for the appellants, are established. The appellants have relied upon a few case laws. On careful examination of the said case laws, it is observed that the facts in those cases are different to the facts of the present case. In the case of J.J. Packagers (P) Limited vs. CCE, Allahabad 2006 (196) ELT 381 (Tri. Del.), the stock of finished goods and raw material were found in the factory premises. In the case of CCE, Indore vs. Avanti LPG India Limited 2004 (166) ELT 186 (Tri. Del.), the raw materials were found in excess in the factory. In the case of CCE & Cus. vs. Saurashtra Cement Limited 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.), facts are entirely differen....