9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and were availing SSI exemption. During search proceedings conducted by department on 12-05-2015, it emerged that the appellants are not maintaining any registers with regard to account of raw material and finished goods, that they manufacture goods bearing common brand name without obtaining Central Excise registration. On reasonable belief that they have rendered themselves ineligible for SSI exemption, department seized unaccounted raw materials valued at Rs. 0.81 crores and finished goods valued at Rs. 1.8 crores under Panchnama dated 15-12-2015. Aggrieved by the seizure, appellants filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana & State of Andhra Pradesh, for release of seized goods . The H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner has done. 4. We have given consideration to the submissions made before us. 5. At the time of hearing the learned counsel submitted that the appellants have filed another Writ Petition No. 13498/2016 before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, challenging the conditions imposed for provisional release. The learned counsel submitted that the writ happened to be filed because the Division Bench was not available before the Tribunal during the material time. He undertook to withdraw the writ petition, since the Division Bench of the Tribunal has been constituted and has taken up the matter. 6. Reverting back to the issue before us, we find that the Commissioner has issued the order of provisional release in terms of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scharged; this is one of the conditions in the impugned order also. The appellants have submitted that the duty element on the said goods works out to Rs. 28,55,409/-. We also note that the appellants have already paid an amount of Rs. 29,91,500/- during investigation. Against this, the value of the goods seized as per impugned order is Rs. 1,80,47,548/-. Taking all these aspects into consideration we are of the opinion that the circumstances do not require imposition of security of 25% of Bond amount (Value of goods) and that security of 10% of Bond amount would meet the ends of justice while taking care of the interest of Revenue. Ordered accordingly. 7. We make it clear that but for the reduction in the quantum of security, we do not in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
