TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed in terms of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. It may be mentioned here that the goods were provisionally released to the respondent on furnishing bond of Rs. 3,99,514/- being the amount of excise duty chargeable on the goods and bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/- be released at the time of payment of redemption fine. The goods are thus lying with the respondent awaiting result of the present appeal. 3. The respondent, M/s. Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of Essential Oil (Dementholised Oil) falling under chapter sub-heading no. 3301.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The officials of the Directorate General of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Rules, 2002 is made out and, therefore, learned Commissioner committed error in setting aside the confiscation and imposition of penalty. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the absence of any evidence suggesting clandestine removal of goods and/or intention to evade payment of duty, no case of confiscation of penalty was made out and, therefore, the Commissioner rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and no interference is called for with the order-in-appeal at this stage. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (T); and Citizen Extrusion (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Surat-II, 2007 (220) E.L.T. 818 (T), in which it was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vention of Rule 10 which deals with maintaining of daily stock account, that is to say, accountal of the excisable goods in the concerned record, namely, RG-I. That appears to be the reason why in order to attract clause (d) there must be an intention to evade payment of duty while in the case of non-accountal simplicitor clause (b) would get attracted without the element of mens rea i.e. intention to evade payment of duty. 6. It is not in dispute that the goods in question were not shown in RG-23-I. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that clause (b) refers to excisable goods and, therefore, until and unless the goods in question attained the state of marketability, they could not be said to be excisable goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence suggesting clandestine removal of the goods or to intentionally evade payment of duty, and, therefore, imposition of penalty may not be upheld. However, as observed above, a case of violation of clause (b) of Rule 25 is made out and the goods were, therefore, liable to confiscation. As mentioned at the outset, the respondent was given option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- which did not call for any interference by the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner, therefore, committed error in setting aside that part of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 8. In the result, the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner is set aside to the extent he set aside the order of confiscation with option to take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
