2010 (7) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The factories of both the units were visited by the Central Excise Officers on 17-10-97, who conducted various checks and verifications. The premises of M/s. Sompura Tiles Pvt. Ltd. and of M/s. Choice Ceramic Tiles Pvt. Ltd. also were put under search and a file containing loose slips were recovered. Shri S.P. Sompura, Director of M/s. Sompura Tiles Pvt. Ltd., in his statement, admitted that the entries in the loose papers reflect the clandestine clearance of their final product. 3. On the above basis proceedings were initiated against the appellants for confirmation of demand of duty and for imposition of penalty. It was also noticed that if the quantum of clearances made on clandestine basis are taken into consideration, the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . E/994/08 & 996/08 by the two companies. 7. One appeal, being Appeal No. E/1145/07 filed by M/s. Choice Ceramic Tiles Pvt. Ltd. is against the order of rejection of refund claim, which the said appellant filed, when the demand was dropped by the Assistant Commissioner. The other appeals are filed by the directors of the company against the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed in de novo proceedings imposing penalties upon them. 8. Learned advocate, Shri K.I. Vyas, appearing for the appellants submits that the demands on M/s. Choice Ceramic Tiles Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sompura Tiles Pvt. Ltd. on the findings of clandestine removal are not being contested by him. He submits that though the duties were deposited by M/s. Choice .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lying upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Aplab Display Devices & Systems Ltd. v. CCE & Cus., Pune reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 398 (Tri. - Mumbai), he submits that appellant is not repeated offender and as such harsh action of confiscation of land, plant & machinery was not justified. In any case submits the learned advocate that the provisions of Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 providing for confiscation of land, plant & machinery etc. were deleted from the statute book with effect from 12-5-2000 under Notification No. 30/2000-C.E. (N.T.). As such the same not being available at the time of re-adjudicating of the case, the action taken by the authorities is not in accordance with law. For the above proposition he relie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X