2016 (11) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate for the appellant Shri G.R. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) for the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The appellant is before us against order dated 01/01/2013 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi II. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pan masala liable to Central Excise duty. Officers of Central Excise Intelligence visited the premises of the appellant in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion to redeem the confiscated goods on fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- 2. On appeal, the said order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We find that the Betel Nut seized during the visit of the officers is the raw material for the appellant. The confiscation of the said Betel Nut was ordered by the lower Authorities in terms of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er these rules with intent to evade payment of duty, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or a registered dealer, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he form in which it was seized. Further, the justification recorded in the impugned order is to the effect that the appellants failed to submit statements regarding details of Betel Nut and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 12 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As such, the confiscation was upheld. We find that even if it is a violation of the Notification No. 3/2007-CE (NT) mandating the su....