TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of seized yarn as also imposition of penalty on the finding that during the period relevant for the purposes of the present appeal, the appellants had cleared polyester synthetic yarn under the guise of shoddy yarn. 2. The appellant s factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 8-7-98, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result of investigation, it was found that the appellant was manufacturing polyester yarn, which attracted higher rate of duty of 18% BED and AED @ 15% of BED. The appellants had never declared the manufacture of polyester yarn with the Central Excise department and never entered the POY waste in their records. On physical verification, the polyester yarn weighing 2100 Kgs was found laying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants was polyester yarn and not shoddy yarn. However, we find that the officers at the time of their visit to their factory found polyester yarn manufactured by the appellants and seized the same. The same was sent for testing and the result by the chemical examiner showed that the yarn in question was polyester yarn. The Director of the company has also deposed in his statement that they were manufacturing polyester yarn and did not file any classification or intimation to the revenue with mala fide intention to clear the same under the guise of shoddy yarn on payment of less rate of duty. Ld. Advocate fairly agrees that the said statement was never retracted by the Managing Director. As such, the same has been rightly held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as given a detailed statement, which is inculpatory in nature and stands unretracted, we do not find any reason even extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. 8. In view of the above, we confirm the demand of duty against the appellants. We also uphold confiscation of the seized yarn with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/-. However, keeping view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the personal penalty of Rs. 5,19,130/- imposed under Section 11A to Rs. 2.50 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) and set aside the personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appeal is disposed off in above manner. (Pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
