9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai, Superintendent (AR) : For The Respondent ORDER Per: P.K. Jain Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of aluminium utensils. Aluminium utensils are exempt from payment of duty. For the manufacture of aluminium utensils, they require aluminium circles. The appellant is buying from the market aluminium circles and using the same in the manufacture of aluminium utensi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th January 2004, for confiscation of the goods seized, interest under Section 11AB and penalty on Shri Kamlesh Solanki, partner of the appellant firm, under Rule 26. The case was adjudicated wherein the said demand was confirmed. Redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on Shri Kamlesh Solanki, partner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 6 lakhs is on a very high side. He further submitted that the second appellant is the partner in the firm and the unit is a small unit and they are not conversant with the excise procedures and as soon as the departmental people pointed out their mistake in 2004, they paid the estimated duty and, therefore, requested for lenient view. 3. Learned AR, on the other hand, took us through the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndoubtedly satisfying those conditions. It is not under dispute that the appellant themselves were purchasing such aluminium circles from the market. This itself shows that the goods are marketable. We, therefore, do not find any strength in the submissions of the appellant that the goods produced are not marketable. Under the circumstances, we do not find any strength in the appeals filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demption fine to Rs. 10,000/- only. 4.1 We also find that penalty of Rs. 1 lakhs has been imposed on the partner of the appellant firm. Since the duty amount is only Rs. 1,28,902/-, we find that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh is on a very high side. We also note that the appellant is a small unit. Keeping in view the overall facts and also the conduct of the appellant that they paid the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
