Judgment:
1. These appeals have been directed against the common order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand and penalty on the appellants, as detailed therein.
2. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. The learned Counsel has contended that the confiscation of the goods has been wrongly ordered and so also the imposition of penalties on the appellants as there was no deliberate mis-description of the product by them. He has also contended that the redemption fine and the penalty imposed are exorbitant. But we are unable to subscribe to these contentions of the learned Counsel. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants during the period in dispute i.e. 10-1-2001 onwards were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Steel ingots, Iron Castings, Hot Rolled Products of Iron & Steel. They were manufacturing non-alloy Steel ingots and were required to discharge the duty on the basis of annual production capacity under Section 3A of the Act. But they misdeclared the goods as alloy steel products and availed the credit on the inputs and capital goods illegally. They also wrongly availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 in respect of ingots cleared by them from their furnace unit to the rolling mill division which, otherwise, were not admissible to them if they had paid the duty under Section 3A of the Act. The plea of the appellants that they were, in fact, manufacturing allow steel products, in our view, had been rightly rejected by the authorities below in view of the report of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory dated 19-9-2000. Therefore, the confiscation of the goods seized from the factory premises of the appellants by the officers at the time of visit had been rightly ordered by the authorities below. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order in this regard.
3. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine for the redemption of the confiscated goods, to Rs. 40,000/- (rupees forty thousand only) and penalty on the company, appellants No. 1, to Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only).
But for want of any evidence to bring home the allegations against the other appellants, who were at that time, the Directors of the Company, for imposing penalties under Rule 209A against them, the personal penalties imposed on them are set aside.
4. Consequently, the impugned order stands modified and the appeals of the appellants stand disposed of in the above terms.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in the open Court on 3-3-2005)