TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dt. 30-11-2000 vide which he had modified the Order-in-Original, dt. 20-11-98 of the Deputy Commissioner by reducing the redemption fine on the seized goods to Rs. 60,000/- and penalty amount to Rs. 25,000/- on the appellants. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. Appellants were engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,20,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellants and of Rs. 1,000/- on Shri Jeewan Lal, partner. 3. Ld. Counsel has contended that non-accountal of the goods in RG-1 register was due to non-inspection of the same by the Railways for whom those were manufactured and there is nothing on record to show that appellants had any mala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through the record. 6. So far as the non-accountal of the goods in the RG-l register by the appellants is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the ld. Counsel. But the facts and circumstances brought on record did not warrant for drawing any inference against the appellants that they had any mala fide intention in not recording the goods in the RG-l register. The appellants were adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear the goods without payment of duty, specially when they were to supply the goods to the Indian Railways and not to any private person. If they had any mala fide intention, they could clear the goods immediately after manufacture in August, 1996 itself and would not have kept the goods in their store waiting for inspection of the same by the Railways. The fact that they did not in any manner tem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors (P) Limited v. CCE, Raipur - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (Tribunal) = 2000 (91) ECR 569, wherein this proposition of law had been laid down by the Tribunal. 8. In view of discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner regarding confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
