TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urer of articles of plastic falling under Chapter sub heading No.8418.90. The officers of the revenue visited the factory premises of the appellant on 22/12/98 and found that the appellants had not debited the amount of duty in their PLA for the clearances made from 02/12/98 to 14/12/98, finished goods were stored unaccounted in the Statutory Central Excise records manufactured and cleared to their own units without payment of duty and manufactured and cleared the moulds to Milton Plastics Ltd., without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority on the adjudication of the show cause notice confirmed the demands arising out of the above allegations, confiscated the seized goods unaccounted in the factory premises of the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge of space in their factory premises. It is his submission that the appellant was entertaining a bonafide impression that unit No.2 being their own unit, they need not pay the duty for storage purposes. He submits that the amount of duty of Rs.64,000/- on this count is also paid and they are not contesting the same. He pleads for on leniency of the penalty imposed on this count. 3.2 As regards the manufacture and clearances of the moulds and the confiscation thereof in the factory premises of Milton Plastics Ltd., it is his submission that these moulds were manufactured by the appellants working under the provisions of Notification No.214/86 as job worker of the Milton Plastics Ltd. He submits that as per the req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot for the current appellant. It is his submission that the Ld. Adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in imposing the redemption fine on the current appellant. 3.4 As regards the confiscation of the unaccounted finished goods from the factory premises, it is his submission that there were no evidence to remove the same as they were found to be in the factory premises. Hence there was no necessity of confiscating the same. It is his submission that the penalty imposed on the appellants on this count needs to be viewed with a lenient eye. As regards the penalty imposed on the partner, he submits that the partnership and partner cannot be viewed separately and if the partnership firm is penalized, then the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covers the issue against the appellants. As regards the penalty imposed on the partner of the firm, it is his submission that the partner was looking after day to day activity of the firm and penalty imposed on the partner is correct and does not require any interference. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. As regards the confirmation of duty of Rs.1,79,208/- and an amount of Rs.64,062/- out of the non debit in the PLA and the goods removed from the unit of the appellants to his own unit No.2 without payment of duty, the appellants having accepted the duty liability and discharged the same, and not contesting before us, the impugned order to that extent is upheld. The im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actory or (d) used in the manufacture of goods of the description specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed by another job worker for further use in any of the manner provided in clause (a) (b) and (c) as above (ii) the said supplier produces evidence that the said goods have been used or removed in the manner prescribed above; and (iii) the said supplier undertakes the responsibilities of discharging the liabilities in respect of Central Excise duty leviable on the final products" 7.1. It can be noticed from the above reproduced clause that the supplier of the raw materials should undertake the responsibility of discharging the liabilities of the Central Excise duty arising out of job working. We find from the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be called as clandestinely removed and hence, the confiscation of the said seized goods is liable to set aside and we do so. 9. As regards the confiscation of the goods lying unaccounted in the factory premises of the appellants, we find that the said goods were completely manufactured and it was for the appellants to record the same in statutory books. Having not done so, the goods are liable for confiscation, whether there is mens-rea or not, as has been held by the Larger of the Tribunal in the case of Modison (supra) and we hold that the said confiscation is correct. We also find merits in the submission made by the Counsel that the amount of redemption fine imposed on the said confiscation is on higher side and, hence....