TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. Appellants are manufacturers of C.I. Castings and were availing the procedure set out under Rule 57F(3) by sending semi finished goods to their Unit No. II at a distance of about 3 KM on 57F(3) challans. On 14-3-96, a lorry was loaded with a part of processed goods which were to be removed for Unit II on 57F(3) challans, but due to incorrect reportin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 52A(8)(c) and allowed to be redeemed on fine of Rs. 19,000/-. The lorry confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of the Central Excise Act was allowed to be redeemed on a fine of Rs. 4,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the appellant manufacturers. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals), found violation of Rule 57F(3) in this case and confirmed the disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the rule, which has been specifically amended vide Notification 17/95-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 18-5-95, to permit clearance of payment of duty would indicate only a procedural contravention in this case. Since duty on the final product has been admittedly debited, and the Commissioner (Appeals) has found no justification for confiscating the seized goods (job worked at Unit No. II) and the lorry. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to a penalty . When confiscation liability is not upheld, penalty liability cannot be sustained in the facts of this case. The penalty under 173Q(1)(d) cannot be also sustained since no intent to evade duty by said contravention could be established. The penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Rule 173Q is therefore required to be set aside. 4. In view of the findings, arrived in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
