TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that they were not maintaining any records. Learned Counsel for the appellant herself has conseded even though at the time of officer visit to the factory, they were not required to file any declaration or obtain Central Excise registration, they should have maintained some records of the goods manufactured and cleared by them. However, there is neither allegation against the appellant that they were under reporting the production and clearances nor there in any allegation that the clearances of the appellant’s unit were required to be clubbed with the clearances of some other unit and on that basis, they are not eligible for SSI exemption. Merely for non-maintenance of records, the redemption fine of ₹ 2 lakhs and penalty equal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2 lakh, and besides this, the appellant imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/-. Both the appellant as well as department filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). The department filed the appeal for enhancing the penalty equal to the duty involved on the seized goods i.e. ₹ 65,293/- while the appellant filed the appeal challenging the confiscation and quantum of redemption fine. Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant but allowed the appeal filed by the department, and accordingly he enhanced the penalty to ₹ 65,293/-. Thus the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods is ₹ 2 lakhs and the penalty im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eized goods is too harsh. She also pleaded that there is neither allegation nor evidence indicating that the appellant were suppressing their production or that their clearance were to be clubbed with the clearances of other units for determining their liability for SSI exemption. She, therefore, pleaded for reduction of the quantum of redemption fine and penalty. 4. Shri Promod Kumar, learned Jt.CDR assailed the impugned order by reiterating the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that even if the appellant were within the SSI exemption limit and were not even required to file declaration, they should have maintained some records and that appellant themselves have conceded that this case at best is case for non maintenance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
