TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)].- 1. After hearing both the sides, we find that M/s. Bindal Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of processed manmade fabrics and during the relevant period, were working under the Compounded levy scheme. During the course of visit of the officers in the appellant's company on 31-12-2000, it was found that though the stenter sealing register revealed that two stenter machines were sealed by the Central Excise officers, in terms of the request made by them, but the same were otherwise working. The Director of the mill, Shri Mahendra Kumar Sancheti stated that they had cut the iron chains from both the sealed stenters and utilized them for manufacture of processed fabrics, without intimating the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not drawn to the provisions of Rule 96ZQ(5) in that case. 4. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant parts of the said Rule 96ZQ, as under :- Rule 96ZQ - Procedure to be followed by an Independent processor oftextile fabrics :- 1 …………. 2 …………. 3. Firsty per cent of the amount of duty payable for a calendar month under sub-rule (1) shall be paid by the 15th of the month and the remaining amount shall be paid by the end of that month. 4 ………… 5. If an independent processor fails to pay the amount of duty or any part thereof by the date specified in sub-rule 3, he shall be liable to, (i) ………... (ii) a penalty equal to an amount of duty outstanding from him at the end of such month or rupees five thousand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end of the month. 6. Admittedly, in the present case 50% of the duty was not paid by 15th of December, 2000 and the same was deposited by the appellant at the end of the month, after the visit of the officers. Apart from the above, we find that serious allegations of breaking departmental seal stand admitted by the appellant, which reflect upon their mala fide . It also stands recorded in the impugned order of the Jt. Commissioner that the appellant is a habitual offender. Having adjudged the appellant's liability to penal action, we hold that the goods seized were liable to confiscation. However, we reduce redemption fine to Rs.40,000/- and penalty to Rs.3.10 lakhs inasmuch as 50% of the dues even for the month of the December, were r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
