TMI Blog1993 (12) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise, Allahabad confiscating 131 TV sets valued at Rs. 5,89,325/- found in excess and unaccounted for in the statutory records and levying duty on 58 TV sets valued at Rs. 2,53,625/- removed clandestinely without payment of duty and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/- in lieu of confiscation and a penalty of Rs. 12,500/-. E/2546/89-NRB has been preferred against the order of the same adjudicating authority confiscating 117 TV sets found in excess and levying duty on 50 TV sets removed clandestinely and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of confiscation and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. E/2545/89-NRB relates to Unit EF III of the appellant, while the other appeal relates to the Unit EF II. 2. The brief facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has further stated that the production of 24-9-1986 and the clearances effected on that day were duly taken into account while ascertaining shortage/excess and that the production of 25-9-1986 was not taken into account for arriving at the shortage/excess in stock. The learned Counsel draws our attention to a letter of the appellants dated 26-9-1986 addressed to the Assistant Collector containing figures of variation in stock as per the detailed counting carried out by the appellants on 26-9-1986 and submits that according to the appellants the shortage of TV sets is less than the shortage recorded in the stock-taking report. However, he fairly admits that there is no explanation for even the admitted shortage. 5. We see no force in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was open to the appellants to explain the position during the course of hearing before us and admittedly the appellants are not in a position to account for the excess detected. Hence, we see no ground to interfere with the finding on this aspect. 6. We see no force in the contention of the learned Counsel that the Collector was not empowered to impose a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation when the goods had already been released provisionally as we find from the impugned orders that the Collector has ordered realisation of the penalty, fine and duty payable by the appellants by enforcing the bank guarantee already furnished to the Department. 7. In the light of the above discussion we uphold the impugned orders and dismiss the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
