2018 (5) TMI 913

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th sides duly represented by Ms. Seema Jain, learned Advocate for the assessee and S/Shri K. Poddar and S.Nunthuk, learned DRs for the Revenue. I find that M/s Seema Dhatu Udyog is a proprietary unit engaged in the manufacture of aluminium ingots and wire parts of refined copper, whereas M/s Naveen Impex is an importer of aluminium scrap. On the basis of the intelligence received by the Revenue, the factory premises of M/s Seema Dhatu Udyog as also the business premises of M/s Naveen Impex were put to search and verifications were conducted leading to seizure of some excess final products as also the raw materials in the factory of M/s Seema Dhatu Udyog. Similarly, the search in the premises of M/s Naveen Impex resulted in recovery of cash ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Penalties of Rs. 1,31,402/- were imposed in respect of godown premises as also the factory premises. As regards, the cash seized from the residence of proprietor Naveen Impex, the Adjudicating Authority ordered the confiscation of the same, in one part of the order and in another part, he ordered for release of the cash after appropriation of redemption fine and penalties. 5. The said order of the Original Adjudicating Authority was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the demand of Rs. 48.44 lakhs confirmed against M/s Seema Dhatu Udyog, but upheld the redemption fine and penalties imposed in respect of the seized and confiscated excess found final product and the raw material. As regards, confiscation of cash, he set....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6) E.L.T. 495 (Del.) as also in the case of Shanti Fastners vs. CCE, Jallandhar reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T. 172 upheld by Hon'ble High Court reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 240. 8. As regards the Revenue's appeal, it is seen that the Revenues grounds of appeal are not challenging the setting aside a demand of Rs. 48.88 lakhs by Commissioner (Appeals). The duty of Rs. 90,846/- payable in respect of the seized goods is required to be paid at the removal of the goods and the Revenue's only case is that mandatory penalty should have been imposed. As regards confiscation of the cash, the Revenue has challenged the order of Commissioner (Appeals) as also his order setting aside second time penalty of Rs. 1,31,402/- on M/s Naveen Impex. 9. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e only the importer of aluminium scrap and non-entry of the same in the records does not justified the confiscation of the goods, especially when no manufacturing activity was being undertaken by them. As such, the imposition of redemption fine or penalty upon them is not justified. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and their appeal is allowed with consequential relief. In as much as the penalty imposed upon M/s Naveen Impex has been set aside. Revenue's appeal against that part of the order vide which penalty imposed in respect of godown premises was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals), does not survive. The same is accordingly rejected. 11. As regards the cash recovered from the premises of M/s Naveen Impex, it is seen th....