2005 (10) TMI 160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an excess quantity of 762.176 MT of Steel Billets valued at Rs. 76,10,716/-. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants. The excess quantity was confiscated. An option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given. Further a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the imposition of penalty but reduced the same to Rs. 10,000/- only. As regards the confiscation, relying on the following decisions of the Tribunal, he held that the goods which have still not been removed from the factory are not liable to confiscation. (i)      M/s. Pooja Forge [1996 (84) E.L.T. 37....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;  Sunder Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. CCE [2003 (153) E.L.T. 176 (Tri.-Bang.)] (iv)   Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (173) E.L.T. 106 (Tri.-Mumbai)] 6. The learned DR while reiterating the grounds of the appeal, drew my attention to the following case laws : - (i) In the Multiplex Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Case (supra), the Tribunal has held that non-posting of entries in RG1 and non-accountal of goods renders goods liable to confiscation. (ii) In the Autolite (India) Ltd. case (supra), it has been held that excess stock found on surprise check by Excise officers liable to confiscation. (ii) In the CCE, Delhi v. Universal Auto Products Ltd. [2001 (128) E.L.T. 470 (Tri.-Del)], it has been held that the goods found i....