TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er sub heading No.8418.90. The officers of the revenue visited the factory premises of the appellant on 22/12/98 and found that the appellants had not debited the amount of duty in their PLA for the clearances made from 02/12/98 to 14/12/98, finished goods were stored unaccounted in the Statutory Central Excise records manufactured and cleared to their own units without payment of duty and manufactured and cleared the moulds to Milton Plastics Ltd., without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority on the adjudication of the show cause notice confirmed the demands arising out of the above allegations, confiscated the seized goods unaccounted in the factory premises of the appellants, also confiscated the seized moulds in the factory premises of Milton Plastics Ltd., with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed penalties on the appellant firm as well as the partner of the firm. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also came to the same conclusion and upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that as regards the allegation of non debit of the PLA for the goods clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Milton Plastics to discharge the same as it is not in dispute that the appellants were job worker for manufacturing of these moulds. It is his submission that the penalty on the ground is unsustainable and the demand of duty itself is not correct. 3.3 As regards the confiscation of the moulds from the factory premises of Milton Plastics, it is his submission that these were removed from the factory premises of the appellants following the job work procedure as was laid down in Notification No.214/86. Hence, they cannot be called as clandestinely removed goods. It is his further submission that as it may, moulds were seized from the factory premises of Milton Plastics, it was for the Milton Plastics to discharge the redemption fine imposed and not for the current appellant. It is his submission that the Ld. Adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in imposing the redemption fine on the current appellant. 3.4 As regards the confiscation of the unaccounted finished goods from the factory premises, it is his submission that there were no evidence to remove the same as they were found to be in the factory premises. Hence there was no necessity of confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he duty liability and discharged the same, and not contesting before us, the impugned order to that extent is upheld. The impugned order upholding the duty demand is correct and does not require any interference. 7. As regards the duty liability on the appellants for the moulds cleared by them to Milton Plastics Ltd., working under Notification No.214/86, we find that the said Notification under clause No.2 specifically requires the supplier of the raw materials to give undertaking and follow procedure. We may read the said clause:- "The exemption contained in this notification shall be applicable only to the said goods in respect of which, (i) the supplier of the raw materials or semi finished goods gives an undertaking to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of the job worker that the said goods shall be " (a) used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products in his factory; or (b) removed from his factory without payment of duty" (i) under bond for export; or (ii) to a unit in a free trade zone or to a hundred per cent export oriented undertaking or to a unit in a Electronic Hardware Technology Park o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s had cleared the said moulds from factory premises under the statutory challan Annexure-II as was prescribed during the proceedings. Since the moulds are cleared from the appellant's factory under the statutory documents they could not be called as clandestinely removed and hence, the confiscation of the said seized goods is liable to set aside and we do so. 9. As regards the confiscation of the goods lying unaccounted in the factory premises of the appellants, we find that the said goods were completely manufactured and it was for the appellants to record the same in statutory books. Having not done so, the goods are liable for confiscation, whether there is mens-rea or not, as has been held by the Larger of the Tribunal in the case of Modison (supra) and we hold that the said confiscation is correct. We also find merits in the submission made by the Counsel that the amount of redemption fine imposed on the said confiscation is on higher side and, hence, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from Rs.30,000/-. 10. As regards the penalty imposed, we find that the penalty imposed on the appellants is under the provisions of Section1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
