2008 (7) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ms. M.I.J. Micheal, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Both the appeals one filed by the assessee and other filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, I have heard ld. Advocate Shri Suriyanarayanan and ld. Jt. CDR Ms. M.I.J. Micheal in support of the respective appeals. 2. As p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... confiscation of raw material. 3. The Dy. Commissioner, while adjudicating the case, confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 2,10,356/- in respect of the finished goods as also duty of Rs. 1,86,839/- in respect of the raw material so used in the manufacture of the said finished goods. Penalty of Rs. 3,97,195/- was also imposed and the raw materials was confiscated with an redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evenue. 4. The appellant is not disputing the confirmation of demand of duty in respect of the final product inasmuch as admittedly the re-warehousing certificate does not stand produced by them. However, the challenge is to personal penalty, which stand contested on the ground that the original Adjudicating Authority has imposed a cumulative penalty in terms of the provisions of Rule 25 of Cen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id rule does not require order of confiscation to be passed by authorities but gets invoked if the goods are LIABLE to confiscation. As such, it is the liability of the goods which attracts penal provisions and not the actual order of holding them liable to confiscation. Inasmuch as in the present case the goods having been diverted in the local market, are admittedly liable to confiscation, thoug....