TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Central Excise Act and rules made there under - confiscation and penalty directed under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 209(1) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944, are sustainable. However, the redemption fine and penalty imposed are excessive under the circumstances of the case. Consequently, considering the fact that the Appellant is a registered unit, the appropriation of entire Bank Guarantee amounting to ₹ 4,10,799/- on confiscation of goods is modified by reduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said three consignments were seized along with vehicles on 17.12.1997. Regarding the fourth consignment of PTY of 5352.190 kgs valued at ₹ 3,69,301/-, it was concluded that the same was also meant to be diverted. The seized goods were provisionally released on execution of Bond and bank guarantee and on payment of duty. On completion of investigation, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant on 25.05.1998, with proposal for confiscation of the seized goods, recovery of Central Excise duty of ₹ 4,04,930/- on seized PTY, Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 1,27,409/- leviable on 5352.190 kgs of PTY, customs duty amounting to ₹ 12,77,100/- leviable on the imported goods used for manufacture of said quantity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Assailing the impugned order on the said issues, the learned Advocate has submitted that on the basis of CT-3 certificates, the Appellant had cleared the seized goods from the factory on preparation of AR-3As, invoices/challans and following the procedure laid down under the relevant rules as was in existence at the relevant time and applicable for clearance of the goods following AR3A procedure. It is his contention that subsequent diversion/disposal of the goods, on its way to the consignee s premises, cannot be construed as clearance of goods in violation of the provisions contained under Central Excise Act and rules made thereunder. He submits that the goods had not been diverted or attempted to be diverted with their knowledge. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the rules made there under, hence liable for confiscation and attracts penal provisions under the Central Excise Act and the Rules made there under. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The limited issues to be decided is: whether confiscation of the goods seized by the Department and imposition of penalty on the Appellant are proper or otherwise . Undisputedly, four consignments of PTY had been cleared from the factory of the Appellant against AR3As and other documents consigned to M/s RTPL. The three consignments on its way to the destination intercepted by the Department, alleging diversion and consequently effected seizure of the same. The learned Advocate for the Appellant pleaded that they were not in the k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the Central Excise Act and rules made there under. Hence, confiscation and penalty directed under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 209(1) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944, in my view, are sustainable. However, I find that the redemption fine and penalty imposed are excessive under the circumstances of the case. Consequently, considering the fact that the Appellant is a registered unit, the appropriation of entire Bank Guarantee amounting to ₹ 4,10,799/- on confiscation of goods is modified by reducing the fine to ₹ 1.00/- (Rupees one lakh only) and penalty to ₹ 4.00 lakhs (Rupees Four Lakhs only) to meet the ends of justice. Further, I find that nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
