TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by M/s. Jaina Cast Ltd. the appellants took possession of the machines and also informed the department about the same. After going through the show-cause notice issued to the appellants, it is a fact that the confiscation of the machines was proposed under Sec. 9 of the Central Excise Act whereas under the Order-in-Original the machines were confiscated by the Central Excise Authorities und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case are that the appellants are engaged in the financing of machines purchased by various customers. The appellants case is that they had entered into an agreement on 1-10-1997 for financing six machines with M/s. Jaina Cast Ltd. who were initially paying instalments regularly later on, defaulted in payment of instalments in the year 2001. Since the payments were not made by M/s. Jaina Cast Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order. 3. The ld. authorised representative appearing for the appellants submitted that in this case the appellants have simply financed the purchase of machines by M/s. Jaina Cast Ltd. Since the instalments were not paid by them, the appellants took the possession of the machines and informed the Central Excise Authorities. The appellants are not the manufacturer, producer or registere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered dealer, they cannot be penalized under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be set aside by the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that since the goods were removed by the appellants from the factory of M/s. Jaina Cast Ltd. in contravention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants were never told about the Rule 173Q and Rule 25 in the show-cause notice. This is also a fact that under Rule 25, the manufacturer, purchaser and registered dealer are covered and the appellants are neither a purchaser, manufacturer or registered dealer. We, therefore find sufficient force in the argument of the appellants that the proceedings initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
