9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002, has also been sustained. 2. The brief facts are that: i. Appellant M/s Ashoka Wires Industries are engaged in manufacturing 'refined copper wires' falling under CETH 7408.1990. ii. During the preventive checks of factory premises of the appellant 2625.05 kilograms copper wire in WIP condition was found in excess and the same were seized under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 as made applicable vide Notification No.68/63-CE DATED 04.05.1963 on the reasonable belief that the same were kept with intention to remove without payment of Central Excise duty thereon. iii. The appellant was issued show cause notice dated 22/01/2014 which was adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctured by them. In this regard the Ld. Advocate refers to the Tribunal's decision in case of Jitendra Agarwal & Kay Cee Electricals Vs CCE, New Delhi 2000 (117) E.L.T. 208 (Tri). 6. From the facts of the case and submissions of both sides, this case appears to be more of unreasonable interpretation of facts and thus committing unreasonable action against the manufacturer assessee. In this case no confiscation was warranted; however, the Department confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine of unreasonable amount of Rs. 3,25,000/-. There is neither any justification for the confiscation of the goods nor any proper reason to impose high amount of redemption fine for redeeming the confiscated goods. The Tribunal in the case of Jite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the appellants in the brief circumstances as stated in the show cause notice and I hold that the facts and circumstances set forth in the show cause notice would not suffice for such an order of imposition of penalty and confiscation of the goods. To that extent, the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty is beyong the scope of the show cause notice itself. Further the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty on the parties without stating any reasons for the same. 5. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals are only liable to be allowed. Therefore, the order of the lower appellate authority is set aside and the appeals are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
