TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order]. After rejecting the request for adjournment (as matter has already come on board number of times and the appeal is also 4 years old), I proceed to decide the appeal inasmuch as short issue is involved. Accordingly, I have heard learned SDR and have gone through the impugned order. 2. The appellant-factory was visited by Central Excise officers on 10-6-2000, who condu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/- and imposition of penalties of Rs. 5,000/- each on both the appellants under provisions of Rule 173Q and Rule 173Q(1) read with Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules. Appeal against the above order did not succeed before Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeals. 4. As regards the duty confirmed in respect of seized stock, the same is requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not been taken note by authorities below. There is, otherwise, no evidence on record showing any preparation for removal of the goods in question. As such, I hold, that the finding arrived at by the authorities below are not based upon any tangible evidence. Thus, confiscation of goods is not justified and the same is accordingly set aside. 6. As regards imposition of personal penalty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
