9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s against the Order-in-Appeal No. 246/ 2004, dated 11-5-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Salem. 2. When the matter was called none appeared for the appellants despite notice. Though the case was posted on four occasions earlier, the appellants have not appeared for the hearing. Therefore the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority therefore confiscated the goods involved giving an option to M/s. Om Sivam Textiles to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. He demanded the duty due of Rs. 25,760/- from M/s. Kumaran Textiles as also the interest due. He imposed equal amount of penalty as the duty on M/s. Kumaran Textiles and also a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on M/s. Om Sivam Textiles. 4. On appeal by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the amount of fine was reduced' to Rs.13,000/-. 5. Ld. SDR, Shri B.L. Meena, reiterates the arguments contained in the orders of the lower authorities. 6. I have heard ld. SDR and perused the records. In the grounds of appeal the impugned order has been challenged on the ground that fine can be imposed on confiscation under Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 only on a prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the penalty and fine may be vacated. 7. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the ld. SDR. It is not disputed that the appellants had received excisable goods without cover of proper invoice. The document under cover of which goods had been consigned to the appellants had been taken back by the supplier. The goods removed without payment of duty by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower appellate authority found that Shri M. Paramasivam, as an experienced trader, should have known that cotton yarn should not have been received without invoice and concurred with the lower authority that the appellant had abetted the clandestine removal by M/s. Kumaran Textiles. Therefore, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants is also in accordance with law. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
