1997 (12) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... accounts. They detected excess of finished goods over and above the recorded balance in RG 1 and seized the same on the ground that they were kept for clandestine removal. The officers also allegedly detected shortages against recorded balance of various items. After issue of show cause notice the case was adjudicated by the Addl. Collector who confiscated the seized goods but gave option to redeem the same on payment of fine and confirmed the duty in respect of goods alleged to be removed clandestinely. Ld. Addl. Collector also imposed penalty. The ld. Commissioner (A) also did not appreciate the facts correctly and did not apply his mind and confirmed the order. Hence the petition. It was their contention that the excess stock found was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... there was no warrant for confiscation and imposition of penalty. 5. Ld. DR drew attention to the impugned orders and reiterated the department's view and emphasised that the facts speak for themselves. Admittedly there was no entry in the RG 1 in respect of the goods found in excess at the time of visit of the officers and no gate pass had been issued in respect of the goods said to be removed for captive consumption. Therefore, the officers were justified in ordering confiscation, demanding duty and imposing penalty. He would also like to mention that on the date of their visit the employees could not give any satisfactory explanation and had on the contrary accepted that the entry could not be made due to negligence of the labourers .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lanation in this regard is also therefore not satisfactory. In the circumstances the goods found in excess were liable to confiscation and the duty in question was required to be demanded. However, the punishment must always be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the fine and penalty imposed in this case appears to be much on the higher side. Hence, looking to the totality of facts and circumstances, I reduce the redemption fine (from Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Only) and the penalty (from Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only). But for this modification the orders are other wise confirmed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Case laws, Dec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X