9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 81,17,157/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further, penalty of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. The only issue involved in the present matter is whether the activity of affixing holograms on the CFLs (revalidation process) carried out by the appellant in its warehouse, amounted to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The process of revalidation/affixation of holograms on the product has been considered by the Commissioner to have rendered the CFLs marketable to the consumer by subjecting it to the treatment of repacking/re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Warehouse Seizure Notice dt.11.02.2015 Goods valued at Rs. 1,43,11,055/- seized 20.04.2016 January 2012 to August 2015 Duty- Rs. 5,13,59,172/- And Penalty under Section 11AC r/w Rule 25 and Confiscation of goods (i) Girish Mittal (ii) Rajiv Sharma (iii) R.Sankaran Kolkata Warehouse Confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 81,17,157/-, vide OIO dated 19.05.2016 passed by Ld.Commissioner, Kolkata, which is the subject matter of present appeal 21.06.2016 January 2013 to August 2015 Duty- Rs. 3,00,45,067/- And Penalty under Section 11AC r/w Rule 25 and Confiscation of goods (i) Girish Mittal (ii) Rajiv Sharma (iii) N.Desikan Bhiwandi (Mumbai) Warehouse Seizure Notice dt.16.02.2015 Goods valued at Rs. 1,36,84,741/- seized 18.07.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rits. All the proceedings against the appellants have been dropped by the Commissioner by passing a common order holding that the said activity cannot be constituted as amounting to manufacture in terms of Section 2 (f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the main appeal has been allowed on merits in favour of the appellant, the present proceedings are only in respect of confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 87,17,157/- with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 81,17,157/-. 4. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the impugned order ordering confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the same, is not sustainable in law and therefore, we set aside the impugned order by allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
