2018 (7) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s)<br>Dated:- 26-3-2018<br>Application Nos. E/ROM/40030- 40033, 40035- 40041/2018 in E/365- 369/2005, E/331- 334, 404, 405/2006 - 40323-40333/2018<br>Central Excise<br>Ms. Sulekha Beevi CS., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Applicant Shri R Parthasarathy, Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per Sulekha Beevi C.S The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion are mentioned as Rs. 3,55,93,450/-, Rs. 1,11,61,000/-, Rs. 74,09,376/- and Rs. 15,44,70,060/- respectively. However, the Tribunal&#39;s Final Order has not specifically mentioned the respective values as mentioned in paras 5,6,7 & 8 of the adjudication order. In the said final order the value pertaining to para-8 (DXN Puducherry) has been mentioned and only the respective para numbers in regar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of removing them clandestinely. There is also no allegation that clearance of these goods have not been accounted for in the concerned records. At the most, if these goods had not been seized, they would have possibly been removed as APM, and hence only resultant short payment of duty would have arisen. However, in the circumstances, confiscation of these goods and imposition of huge redemption ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 74,09,376/- & Rs. 15,44,70,060/- in paras 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the impugned order. Evidently, these goods have been detained / seized at the warehouse / branch office/ factory of the appellants. However, no evidence has been put forth by the department to indicate that DXN kept these goods in the warehouse etc. with the expressed intent of removing them clandestinely. There is also no allegation that ....