COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. JINDAL EXPORTS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Revenue questioning the validity of the part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (A) vide which he has set aside the confiscation of the goods, redemption fine and the penalty as confirmed against the respondents by the adjudicating authority.

(2.) Learned JDR has contended that once the goods were found to be unaccounted in the factory premises of the respondents, they were liable to be confiscated and the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly set aside the confiscation and the redemption fine and penalty by reversing the order -in -original in that regard, without any legal justification.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel has contended that the respondents, a 100% EOU were not required to maintain the RG -I register and that the duty confirmed against them on the intermediate product (DMO) had already been paid by them. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent to which it has been contested by the revenue is perfectly valid.