TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Wadhwa, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Appellant. Shri J.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - All the appeals filed by the appellants as also by the Revenue against the same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) are being disposed off by a common order. The appellants have requested to decide the matter on the basis of written submission filed by them. I have accordingly, heard Shri J.S. Negi, SDR appearing for the Revenue. 2. As per facts on record, M/s. Dupont Synthetics is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Texturised Yarn and Polyester Twisted Yarn falling under Chapter 54 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory was visited by the office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were not seized and were not available for confiscation, no redemption fine is imposable. 5. The appellant's appeals are against the confirmation of demands and imposition of penalty, whereas Revenue is in appeal against that part of the impugned order vide which redemption fine has been set-aside. 6. The appellants have strongly contended that the entire duty of Rs. 1,69,892/- stands paid on the finished goods, there was no justification of confirmation of duty of Rs. 2,41,247/- on the raw materials. He submits that as per the settled law on the issue in terms of the various pronouncements of the Tribunal, duty on the raw material cannot be confirmed, once duty on the final products stands paid. For the above proposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yarn in question, thus justifying the imposition of penalty upon him. I find no reason to interfere in the quantum of penalty imposed on Shri Subhash R. Agarwal. 10. As regards the departmental appeal for non imposition of redemption fine, the respondents have contended that no goods were seized as the same were not available for confiscation and as such, no redemption fine could have been imposed. The same stand correctly set-aside by Commissioner (Appeals). They have also placed reliance on the following decisions :- (a) 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.) - Weston Components Ltd. v. CC (b) 2009 (235) E.L.T. 623 (T.-LB) - Shiv Kripa Ispat P. Ltd. v. CCE (c) 2008 (229) E.L.T. 185 (P H) - CC v. Raja Impex P. Ltd. (d) 2009 (248 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
