2003 (5) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ese two appeals have been preferred against a common Order-in-Appeal dated 29-5-97 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority who ordered confiscation of the semi-finished and finished goods and imposed penalties on the appellants as detailed therein. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellant No. 1 is a firm, while the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osition of penalties on them. After getting their reply, the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the seized goods, but gave option to the appellants to get the same redeemed on payment of fine and also imposed penalties on them as detailed in the Order-in-Original, the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed that Order. 3. None has come on behalf of the appellants. They have prayed a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 173Q by the appellants. His statement has been rightly relied upon by the authorities below for ordering confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties especially when at no stage before the adjudicating authority, he retracted his statement and offered any explanation for non-accountal of the goods. The findings of the authorities below that the non-accountal of the semi-finished and fin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X