9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted against the impugned order dated 28.6.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of TMT bars and M.S. billets, falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On an information that the appellant is engaged in the clandestine manufacture of MS bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs. 62,70,654/- was confiscated under Rule 25 ibid, with the option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. Further, the adjudicating authority has also imposed penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Rules. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 28.6.2016 has upheld imposition of redemption fine i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his further submission that since the goods were available within the factory, the allegation cannot be levelled against the appellant that the goods were made for clandestine removal. Therefore, he submits that confiscation of TMT bars, imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant is not proper and justified. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cers visited the factory on 24.1.2013. Thus, the provisions of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 is violated/contravened by the appellant and as such, the excess found stock was liable for confiscation. Therefore, so far as confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalties are concerned, I am in agreement with both the authorities that the appellant was exposed to the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
