9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from M/s Ratnaraj Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. (M/s RTPL), another 100% EOU and cleared four consignments of PTY of 22,199.900 kgs to M/s RTPL under proper documents viz. AR3s, delivery challans, etc on 29.11.1997. While the said consignments were on its way to Ankaleshwar from Vapi, the Department intercepted three consignments at Vapi valued at Rs. 11,73,712/- involving excise duty of Rs. 4,04,931/- and detained on the belief that the same were diverted to open market instead of being sent to M/s RTPL for its use. Consequently, after recording statements, the said three consignments were seized along with vehicles on 17.12.1997. Regarding the fourth consignment of PTY of 5352.190 kgs valued at Rs. 3,69, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty, penalty and interest, and also confiscation of plant & machinery. 3. The learned Advocate Dr.D.D. Rishi for the Appellants, at the outset, submits that the Appellant in the present appeal even though challenged the confirmation of the demand of duty, however, under the instruction from the Appellant, he would restrict his argument to the confiscation of the goods, imposition of penalty and confiscation of plants and machinery under the Central Excise Act and Rules made there under. In other words, it is his contention that confirmation of duty and interest has been accepted by the Appellant. Assailing the impugned order on the said issues, the learned Advocate has submitted that on the basis of CT-3 certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 2000 (122) ELT 641 (SC). 4. Per contra, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. He has submitted that there are sufficient evidences brought on record by the Revenue establishing that the Appellant was fully aware of the fact of diversion of the goods, hence, imposition of penalty as well as confiscation of goods is justified. It is his contention that, even otherwise, since the goods had been cleared without payment of duty for the purpose of further use in another 100% EOU, but diverted to the local market in contravention of the provisions of Central Excise Act and the rules made there under, hence liable for confiscation and attracts penal provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay the duty involved, the fact which they have not disputed. It is his contention that the confiscation and penalty have been imposed for contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Act and rules made there under and for the said purpose it is not necessary always to prove mens rea on the part of the Appellant. I find force in the contention of the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue. Also, I find that the Appellant has not disputed their liability of duty on the goods cleared by them from the factory against AR-3As which ultimately had not reached the destination, where these goods were to be used by M/s RTPL . In these circumstances, there is contravention of the provisions of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
