ORDER
1. Applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 48,632/- and penalties totalling of Rs. 48,632/-; redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of goods which were earlier provisionally released, by pilot Industries; penalty of Rs. 10,000/- by Kushalchand Jain, (clerk of Pilot Industries) and Rs. 5,000/- by Mulsingh Ranawat.
2. I have heard both sides.
3. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirms the order of the Dy. Commissioner as that order resulted from the proceedings which commenced when the officers seized a vehicle of Ranawat loaded with goods manufactured by Pilot Industries. The Dy. Commissioner finds that the vehicle was found 100 meters away from the factory and that proper invoices, delivery challans was not issued when the goods was seized. Subsequent investigation, according to them shows the presence of documents which indicated that the goods had been removed in the past without paying duty of nearly Rs. 48,000/-.
4. The contention of the common representative is that the vehicle was nearly 15 feet away from the factory, and that goods were covered by valid challans. Challans are not prima facie, accepted in the light of the finding of the Dy. Commissioner. The liability to duty on past clearances is to be determined; at this stage it is not possible to say that applicant has strong prima facie case in its favour. In the light of this prima facie conclusions it would follow that the vehicle was also liable to confiscation. Financial hardship is not pleaded.
5. Having regard to these facts I direct deposit by Pilot Industries of Rs. 50,000/- and by Ranawat of Rs. 15,000/-. On such deposit being made within a month from the receipt of this order deposit of the remaining duty and penalty and penalty imposed on Kushalchand Jain is waived.
6. Although the stay application by Pilot Industries seeks waiver of deposit of redemption fine for excisable goods seized, representative of the applicant says that the goods are still under confiscation and not redeemed by Pilot Industries. If that is the position the application for waiver of deposit of fine in respect of such goods is unnecessary. However, the department is at liberty to seek modification in this regard if the facts found to be contrary.
7. Compliance on 19th July, 2001.