9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of pan masala and gutkha and M/s. Radha Enterprises is a proprietary concern with Shri Ram Bharosey Sharma as proprietor, through whom the goods manufactured by M/s. Amar Food Products were reportedly sold. The trucks carrying pan masala and gutkha were intercepted on three different dates and were found to have brought goods manufactured by M/s. Amar Food Products without payment of duty but carrying sale invoices issued by M/s. Radha Enterprises. The goods valued Rs. 10,90,950/- were seized as having been cleared and transported without payment of duty. There were seizures at the premises of M/s. Amar Food Products as well. During the course of investigation, at the request of M/s. Radha Enterprises, the goods seized from the three trucks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed to M/s. Radha Enterprises, the owner is M/s. Amar Food Products and therefore, by implication, fine is payable by them. He upheld the demand of Rs. 3,27,159/- and penalty imposed on M/s. Amar Food Products. As regards the penalty on M/s. Radha Enterprise, he upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,10,000/-. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants made the following submissions :- (a) The goods were found transported with the invoices of M/s. Radha Enterprises; the goods were provisionally released to M/s. Radha Enterprises on execution of a bond with security by them; however, no show cause notice was issued to M/s. Radha Enterprises proposing confiscation of the foods seized from the trucks and the show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/-. (g) He seeks setting aside the penalty on M/s. Radha Enterprises as they are only buyers of the goods from M/s. Amar Food Products. 5. Learned SDR reiterates the finding and reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). He particularly draws my attention to the finding that M/s. Radha Enterprises was created to route the unaccounted clearances of M/s. Amar Food Products. Therefore, he seeks upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. The evidence on record especially the statements of drivers of the trucks which carried the goods on different dates clearly point to removal of goods from M/s. Amar Food Products without preparing excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imposed by the original authority to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s. Amar Food Products when the goods in the trucks and the goods seized from the factory were confiscated but the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation of goods seized from the factory. However, there was no reduction in the quantum of penalty ordered by him. The submission that the penalty imposed is more than even the duty amount confirmed that is Rs. 3,27,159/- is also relevant. Considering the above submissions, and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed on M/s. Amar Food Products under Rule 173Q is reduced from Rs. 5 lakhs (rupees five lakhs) to Rs. 3,27,159/- (rupees three lakhs twenty seven thousand one hundred fifty n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
