TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since Rule 25 only deals with the excisable goods manufactured by the person and admittedly other than chewing tobacco, the appellants are not manufacturing any other products in their factory, excepting chewing tobacco i.e. finished product of the appellant, other goods cannot be confiscated under Rule 25 ibid. Out of 8 items seized and confiscated by the department, only the finished product viz. chewing tobacco of “Panna” brand valued at ₹ 3,94,400/- is liable for confiscation and redemption fine can be imposed for redeeming the said goods only. Since, the option was given to the appellant to redeem all the seized goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2,50,000/-, redemption fine can be reduced to Rs. One lakh. Penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises, the Central Excise department seized such goods under the reasonable belief that the same are liable for confiscation under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 under Panchnama. Subsequently, the department issued Show Cause Notice, seeking recovery of the duty demand and for imposition of penalties on the appellants. The matter was adjudicated against the appellants vide order dated 20.5.2010, wherein the duty demands confirmed along with interest and penalties were imposed on the appellants. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the adjudged demand. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellants - M/s Nirmal Products (Unit No. I II) are not contesting the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the seized goods and for imposition of penalty on the appellant, it is to be ascertained, whether the said statutory provisions are applicable under the facts and circumstances of the case for confiscation of the said seized goods. On perusal of Rule 25 ibid, it reveals that raw material is neither covered in clause (a) (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 and also not appearing in clause (d) of the said sub-rule. Since Rule 25 only deals with the excisable goods manufactured by the person and admittedly other than chewing tobacco, the appellants are not manufacturing any other products in their factory, I am of the view that excepting chewing tobacco i.e. finished product of the appellant, other goods cannot be confiscated under R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
