TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, no duty demand stands raised against them in respect of the said goods. As such, I find no justification in confiscation of raw material, admittedly stored in the premises of the adjacent factory, which is situated in the same compound. The same is accordingly, set aside. Penalty - Held that: - admittedly, there has been technical and procedural breach of law by the said appellant, though without any mala fide intention. I find that provisions of sub Rule 25(1)(d), which provides for imposition of penalty for contravention the Rules with intent to evade duty, are not applicable. Such contravention would be covered under the provisions of Rule 27. As, there is breach of law on the part of appellant, some penalty is required to be impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said unit. In addition, penalty of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs was imposed on the M/s. N.K. Polymers and Rs. 50,000/- on the Director and authorized signatory. No duty demand was made. 4. On an appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 5 Lakhs and penalties on appellants No. 1 2 to Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. The said order is impugned before me. 5. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that when there is no duty demand, the imposition of penalty or confiscation of the goods were not warranted. For the above proposition, he relied upon the Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Godrej Soaps [2004 (174) E.L.T. 25 (Tri.)] as also the other decisions. Alte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... units are located in one compound. The security guard of the whole compound at the gate is also one. A part of raw material was stored in the premises of other unit was on account of the place constraint. No mala fide stands attributed to the appellant. In fact, no duty demand stands raised against them in respect of the said goods. As such, I find no justification in confiscation of raw material, admittedly stored in the premises of the adjacent factory, which is situated in the same compound. The same is accordingly, set aside. 8. As regards penalty upon M/s. Sanchit Polymers, I find that admittedly, there has been technical and procedural breach of law by the said appellant, though without any mala fide intention. I find that provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
