TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the factory premises of the Appellants-company under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with option to be redeemed on redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 1,28,500/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively, confiscation of packing material (6846.38 Kgs. of lamination and 200 containers) under Rule 25 ibid with option to be redeemed on redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/-, imposing penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- on the Respondent-company under Rules 25 & 27 ibid and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- on Shri Rajesh Agarwal and Shri Rajesh Dixit (authorized signatory of the Appellants-company) under Rule 26 ibid. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oved without payment of duty. In this regard, reliance is placed on Tribunal's judgment in cases of Bhillai Conductors Pvt. Ltd. CCE, Raipur reported in 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (T) and CCE, Rajkot v. Amrit Ceramics reported in 2007 (209) E.L.T. 390 (T) = 2007 (80) R.L.T.-533 (T). (7) While ordering confiscation and imposing penalty specific sub-rule of Rule 25 has not been specified. 2.2 Shri A.K. Rastogi, the learned Departmental Representative, reiterating the Commissioner's findings in the impugned order pleaded that - (a) unaccounted Gutka pouches and unaccounted raw material for making Gutka pouches have been correctly confiscated as finding of 11 undeclared Pan masala/Gutka packing machines is a clear indication that the unacco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter. I do not accept this plea of the Appellants as under proviso to Section 33, the Board can confer the powers of adjudication of the Commissioner on any Central Excise officer and the Board vide circular No. 752/68/03-CX, dated 1-10-03, while specifying the powers of adjudication of Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Additional Commissioner and Commissioner based on the duty involved, has specified the Joint Commissioner's powers of adjudication as "the cases involving fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement of facts, suppression of facts, or contravention of Central Excise Act/Rules with intent to evade the payment of duty, where the duty involved is above Rs. 5 lakhs and does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs". Para 7 of this circ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at the original adjudication stage. In view of this, there is no substance in the Appellant's plea of denial natural justice. 3.3 It has been pleaded that the seized finished goods valued at Rs. 10,27,480/- are not liable for confiscation as even though not accounted for there is no evidence that the same were going to be clandestinely cleared and in this regard reliance has been placed on the Tribunal's judgments in the cases of Bhillai Conductors Private Ltd. v. CC, Raipur (supra) and CCE, Rajkot v. Amrit Ceramics (supra). It has also been pleaded that the goods valued at Rs. 8,65,600/- not entered in the statutory records were those which had been returned from the customers and, therefore, the same are not liable for confiscation. A....