ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The facts are not much in dispute. On 10-12-1997, the Central Excise Officers intercepted one tempo carrying goods i.e. copper ingots valued at Rs. 4,46,975/- without any covering invoice/duty paying document. The goods were seized and on completion of investigation and show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty of Rs. 67,046/-, besides confiscating the goods and also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and further penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) has modified that order by setting aside the confiscation of the goods being not available having been released provisionally, reduced penalty to Rs. 65,000/- and also set aside the confiscation of the vehicle.
3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. Admittedly, the appellants are SSI unit working under the exemption Notification No. 16/97. They had also undisputedly not crossed the prescribed limit. According to them, they had cleared copper alloys only and not copper ingots as alleged by the Department. There is nothing on the record to show if any attempt was made by the Revenue to ascertain the exact nature of the goods. Apart from this, even the copper ingots were exempt from duty under Notification No. 16/97. Therefore, no duty was payable by the appellants. They could only be penalised for having not issued the covering invoice, while clearing the goods. But neither confiscation of the goods nor imposition of penalty and confirmation of duty in respect thereof could be legally done. The fact that the appellants voluntarily during the investigation deposited the duty, did not lead to an inference that they were actually liable to pay, when they had not exceeded the exemption limit and the goods were also not dutiable, as observed above.
4. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of confiscation of the goods, appropriation of the security furnished by the appellants and imposition of redemption fine and penalties, as detailed in the impugned order, is set aside. However, for the lapse of non-issuance of the covering invoice, penalty is also reduced to Rs. 5,000/-(rupees five thousand only). Consequently, except for the penalty which is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal of the appellants is allowed accordingly with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.