TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantities of detergent cakes of various brands packed in carton boxes bearing the names of M/s. Sadhvi Gramudyog Samity and M/s. Manoj Kumar Gupta Co. in addition to the goods with the brand name of the respondents. In fact, the officers found 5,436 cartons of unaccounted stock of detergent cakes totally valued ₹ 17,43,788/-. Out of these, 5,367 cartons were bearing the brand name of other two parties who were undisputedly eligible for clearance of the goods either at nil rate of duty or concessional rate of duty. The original authority held that the respondents had kept the goods unaccounted for in the records with intent to be cleared without payment of duty and that the party would have succeeded in doing so had the officers not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority that the goods were meant to be removed clandestinely was not warranted. Relying on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Sadashiv Ispat Ltd. reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 349, she submits that even if the goods have not been entered in RG-1 register, yet it could not be held that the goods were meant for clandestine removal. 6.1 I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The defence submission is an interesting story! It is the claim of the respondents that the supplier of packing material supplied empty cartons by mistake. Since they had illiterate labourers, the said labourers again by mistake received those packing materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Rules, 2002. Therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation and penalty is also imposable for irregular maintenance of accounts. 7. In view of the above, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the confiscation of the goods and therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) requires to be set aside and the order of the original authority deserves to be restored. 8. However, the redemption fine has been imposed by the original authority under presumption that the goods were meant cleared without payment of duty and that presumption cannot be endorsed. 9. There is no specific demand of duty in the order of the original authority. The learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the goods have since been acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
