TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 605
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Commissioner(Appeals) dated 27-4-2006 whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods Viz. Pastries and Cakes falling under S. H. No. 1905 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of transit check on 3-10-97, the Central Excis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... seized goods and vehicles were later released provisionally on furnishing bond for Rs. 1,90,000/- with Bank guarantee for Rs. 50,000/-. Further investigations revealed that the appellants had not followed the proper and correct procedure with respect to removal and duty payment on excisable goods during the period from 1-4-1997 to 3-10-1997 and total duty liability worked out to Rs. 2,28,609/- wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 set aside the Commissioner(Appeals) order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. Accordingly the matter was adjudicated a fresh by the Addl. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 16-9-2005 confirming the demand with interest and appropriating the amount of Rs. 2,28,609/- paid by the appellant and imposing penalty of Rs. 2,28,609/- already and confi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olved from penalty and interest for the reason that confiscation of the goods is also correct and legal. He placed reliance on following on following judgments: (a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III Vs. Machino Montell (I)Ltd[2006(202) ELT 398(P&H)] (b) Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus. Vs. Shri Ram Aluminium Pvt Ltd[2009(242) ELT 202(Bom)] (c) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. SK....