TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arnataka and Uttar Pradesh and they were not manufactured by the respondent. Further, since duty of Central Excise was discharged, they were no more excisable goods. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority did not have any jurisdiction over them. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/451/2011-EX [ SM ] - Final Order No. 71829/2017 - Dated:- 26-10-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey (Supdt.) for Appellant Shri Rajesh Chhibber (Advocate) for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Present appeal filed by Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 361-362-CE/MRT-II/2010 dated 29.10.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Meer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intimated receipt of such sugar to Sales Tax Department. Ignoring the evidence submitted before him Original Authority adjudicated the matter through Order-in-Original dated 16.01.2010 and confiscated 26916 Qtls. sugar valued at ₹ 4,93,92,473/-. He gave an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fins of ₹ 1.25 crores. He imposed penalty of ₹ 26,34,024/- on the respondent. Further, personal penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs was imposed on Shri Atul Sharma, Manager. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent and Shri Atul Sharma preferred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) decided the said appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 29.10.2010. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the mark of their own unit i.e. M/s Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd., giving impression as if manufactured by themselves only, established by presence of unstitched sugar bags. (v) That as alleged in the show cause notice and confirmed in the Order-in-Original dated 16.01.2010, unaccounted sugar were intended to replenish the clandestinely removed sugar from factory as alleged in main show cause notice dated 03.07.2009. (vi) That thus being part of clandestine removal and uncounted storage in contravention of provisions of Rule 10 and 16(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the said sugar were seized on spot and legally confiscated vide Order-in-Original dated 16.01.2010 the under provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduction or storage of any excisable goods without having applied for the registration certificate required under Section 6 of the Act; or (d) Contravenes any of the provisions of these Rules or the Notifications issued under these Rules intent to evade payment of duty, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse or a registered dealer, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) has been committed, or [rupees two thousand], whichever is greater. An order under (2) Sub-rule (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 4078 of 2008 has clarified that when the conditions spelled out under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are fulfilled, there is no discretion to reduce the mandatory penalty equal to duty even though the duty is paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice. 4. Heard the learned AR who has presented the above stated grounds of appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent who has submitted that it is established beyond doubt that the goods in question were duty paid and not manufactured by respondent and since the said goods were duty paid and not manufactured within the jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority. He had no jurisdiction to deal with them and, therefore, the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
