TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oden boxes packed in polyethylene bags in which 10 number of RS and 10 number of RPS (Electrical resistors) were found. These goods were seized and show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of these goods and imposition of penalty. The case was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confiscated the seized goods but allowed these to be redeemed on redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and he also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the fine and penalty to Rs. 10,000/- each. She challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the ground that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Adjudicating Authority has clearly held that the goods in question were themselves d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclaration as per order received from Chitranjan Locomotive Works. She pleads that these were not fully finished goods and these were not required to be entered in RG-1 register. She relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Uptron Powertronics Ltd. v.. CCE - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 245 wherein it was held that the question basically looks down to the determination of the correct RG-1 stage as the goods are required to be entered only when such a stage has been reached. However, both the parties have not been able to show that any RG-1 stage has been notified by the board or the Collector. In these circumstances, it becomes necessary to look to mainly to two aspects (i) the evidence of completion of manufacture if any and (ii) the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnataka) (2) Kalon Engineers (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-I - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 334. (3) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 (Tribunal) = 2003 (54) RLT 317. (4) CCE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri. - LB) = 2004 (114) ECR 894. 3. In the present case, show cause notice was issued on 18-8-98 whereas the appellants had paid duty on the goods after completion of manufacture on 11-8-98. Therefore, learned Advocate requests that their appeal may be allowed. 4. Shri P.M. Rao, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that in this case, the goods were not accounted for in RG-1 register as in the classification declaration, these were declared separa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
