DAULAT RAM INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellants are challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/ - and confiscation of goods which were released on a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/ -

(2.) Ms. Tamali Wad, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants pleaded that on 24 -4 -98. central excise officers visited the factory of the appellants and they found 20 number of wooden boxes packed in polyethylene bags in which 10 number of RS and 10 number of RPS (Electrical resistors) were found. These goods were seized and show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of these goods and imposition of penalty. The case was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confiscated the seized goods but allowed these to be redeemed on redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/ - and he also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/ -. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the fine and penalty to Rs. 10,000/ - each. She challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the ground that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Adjudicating Authority has clearly held that the goods in question were themselves decalred as final products in the declaration filed by them and this finding of the Adjudicating Authority has not been challenged by the appellants that the goods were not declared as final products in their declaration. She referred to para 5 of their appeal memo filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was staled that the order of the learned Commissioner in so far as it is based on the finding that RS and RPS have been declared by the appellants as final products is not only wrong but also contrary to the evidence on record. She also referred to para -h of her appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). She also referred to the classification declaration filed by the appellants (page 23 of the paper book). Serial No. 6 of the said declaration reads as under: -

(3.) In the present case, show cause notice was issued on 18 -8 -98 whereas the appellants had paid duty on the goods after completion of manufacture on 11 -8 -98. Therefore, learned Advocate requests that their appeal may be allowed.