2016 (11) TMI 920

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for imposing of redemption fine and penalty against the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that on 20-8-2010 a search was conducted at the factory premises of the appellant. During the search, certain records were resumed. Later on, 1-10-2010 the Jurisdictional Commissionerate again conducted a search on the factory .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... M/s. Giovani Fashions Ltd., therefore, M/s. Giovani Fashions was exonerated but after verification as the seized goods was cleared on payment of duty, the goods were held liable for confiscation for non-accountal in their statutory records. Consequently, the redemption fine of Rs. 2 lac was imposed and penalty of Rs. 3 lac also imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd penalty are also in challenge. It is a evidence on records that on 1-10-2010, the search was conducted and seized goods were not accounted in the statutory records by the appellant. But the Revenue has not come with any positive evidence that the said goods are meant for clandestine clearance by the appellant. In that circumstances, goods cannot be confiscated. As these goods are meant for clea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X