2018 (1) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt(s) Shri L. Patra, A.R. for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order for imposing redemption fine on the appellant Company and for imposing penalty on the co-appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.10.2013, the factory of the appellants were searched and it was found that there was excess stock of 383.138MT.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant to confiscate the seized goods and to impose penalty on both the appellants. The adjudicating authority held that seized goods are liable for confiscation and redemption fine was imposed and penalty on both the appellants were imposed. On appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the penalty imposed on the main appellant Company was set-aside and rest of the order was confirmed. Aggri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bachubhai B Agola was recorded and penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been imposed on the ground that appellant is Director and the penalty is imposable. As the no role of the appellant has been explained then no penalty can be imposed on the appellant. 5. On the other hand, ld AR opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that in the light of the decision of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be released unconditionally. Admittedly, in this case, no show cause notice in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been issued to the appellant therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the seized goods back unconditionally. 7. As the goods were required to be released unconditionally, in that circumstance, although the goods are liable for confiscation but, as the goods ....