ORDER
Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. The Appeal and the Stay Petition are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 92/03 dated 31.3.2003. As the matter lies in a short compass, the Stay Petition and Appeal are taken up together for disposal as per law.
2. The Ld. Consultant Shri K. Krishnan Kutty appeared on behalf of the appellant/applicant submits that duty was paid on 1.3.2000 before the issue of the Show Cause Notice, which was issued on 10.8.2000. Therefore, the penalty should not have been imposed on them. He further submitted that they were ignorant about the legal position and cleared the goods on the pre-budget day by making debit entry in RG 1, but by mistake did not make the entry in the RG 23A Part II, although, in the invoices, the debit entry was mentioned. He, therefore, submitted that the goods should not have been confiscated and no RF should have been imposed and not penalty should have been levelled on them. The Ld. consultant has also produced photocopies of the extract of RG 1 duly certified by the Superintendent of Central Excise Divisional, Pollachi.
3. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue, Ld. JDR Shri C. Mani submits that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty and they had declared the last invoice and 265 as at 6. 00 p.m., on the pre-budget day and had raised invoice for their clearance made on 28.2.2002. He, therefore, submitted that there is a violation of Rules 52A, 9(1), 173G, 224 and 226 and goods are, therefore, rightly confiscated and redemption fine imposed. He submitted that penalty under 173Q has also been rightly imposed. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal should be rejected and the impugned order of the lower authority sustained.
4. I have carefully gone through the case records and the submissions made by both the sides and I find that there has been a violation of Rules 52A, 9(1), 173G, 224 and 226 and, therefore, 5760 kgs of PV Corn Yarn is liable for confiscation and they are also liable for penalty under Rules 173Q of the Rules ibid. In addition, they are also required to pay appropriate duty. The amount of Rs. 1,34,246 was appropriated from the amount paid by them through TR-6 Challan, dated 1.3.2000 towards the above duty amount and I confirm the same. As records confiscation, the goods removed were liable for confiscation and since they were provisionally released, the amount from the security deposit rightly has been appropriated. However, they deserve leniency in view of the fact that the adjudicating authority, namely the Joint Commissioner in Para 20 of his order has held that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty and it was in this background, he did not impose any penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Keeping in view of the fact, I reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 50,000 and I order accordingly. As regards the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,34,246 under Rules 173Q of the Rules ibid, I am inclined to reduce the penalty from 1,34,246 to Rs. 25,000 only. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. Ordered accordingly.