2017 (12) TMI 230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Per: S.K. Mohanty These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. In this case, the adjudicating authority has confiscated the finished goods valued at Rs. 1,56,600/- and raw material valued at Rs. 5,24,730/-. The appellant was provided with the option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... submits that since seizure itself is not permissible under the Central Excise statute, confiscation of goods under Rule 25 is not proper and justified. The ld. Advocate further submits that personal penalty under Rule 26 ibid on Shri Rajesh Kumar is not imposable inasmuch as he is no way concerned with the appellant company M/s Girraj Jee Office Systems. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR appearing fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e record. 5. I find that for non-accountal of goods in the statutory records, the same were confiscated by the department under Rule 25 ibid. Since confiscation of un-accounted for finished goods in the factory is in-conformity with Rule 25 ibid, imposition of redemption fine and penalties on the appellant M/s Girraj Jee Office Systems, in my considered opinion, is proper and justified. Thus, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X