TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s so as to attract confiscation of goods and penalty - Relying upon Dayal Industries vs. CCE, Delhi - II [2006 (4) TMI 12 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The only basis for confiscation of the goods is that the appellant were required to maintain the statutory Central Excise records and the seized goods were not accounted for - It is well settled that a unit, which is well within the SSI exemption limit and is not even required get registered with Central Excise, is not required to maintain statutory Central Excise records and no penalty can be imposed for non-accountal of the excisable goods - Though the learned Jt. CDR pleads that the appellant were not eligible for SSI exemption as their clearances were requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by which the stock of seized goods valued at Rs. 9,05,590/- was ordered to be confiscated with option to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and beside this, penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed. The unaccounted goods found in the other units were also confiscated and the penalties were imposed, but in this appeal we are not concerned with the goods seized from other group units. On appeals being filed by M/s Flyco Auto Pvt. Ltd. and also by the Department, before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order, enhanced the penalty to Rs. 65,000/- but maintained the redemption fine. He, however, set aside the confiscation of the raw material. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) and pleaded that the appellant were evading duty by under reporting the value of clearances, that there is a case for clubbing of clearances of the appellant company with the clearances of other group companies and on that basis, the appellant would not be eligible for SSI exemption and that in view of this, the goods have been correctly confiscated, and penalty has correctly been imposed. He, therefore, pleaded that this is not the case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The only basis for confiscation of the goods is that the appellant were required to maintain the statutory Central Excise records and the seized goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
