Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Cce on 18 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(89)ECC294
JUDGMENT P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed by the appellants against the common adjudication order-in-original dated 10.10.2002 vide which the Commissioner has confirmed duty demand, besides confiscation of goods, vehicle, against the company appellant No. 1 and imposed penalties of various amounts under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, on the other appellants, as detailed therein.
2. Appellant No. 1 is a company (in short hereinafter referred to as company), while appellant Nos. 3 & 8 are its Director and production Manager, respectively. The company is engaged in the manufacture of gutkha falling under Chapter heading 2106 of the CETA, under thebrand names of 'Goa-1000', 'Goa', 'Satyam', 'Bazigar', 'Mini', and 'Shahi'. They are also engaged in the manufacture of pan masala under the brand name of 'Goa' and mouth freshner under the brand name of 'Sath Sath'. Shri Ketan Vinod Shah is the Director while Santosh Joshi (appellant) is the production manager of the company. On 17.1.2000, one vehicle of the company was intercepted by the officers of the Central Excise while carrying 10 bags of 'Goa-1000' brand gutka. The driver of the vehicle Anees Ahmed Khan, on the asking of the officers could not produce any duty paying document covering those goods. He only produced one hand written chit which indicated that the goods were to be sold at Ahmednagar at a particular sale price. He admitted in his statement that these goods were loaded by him from the factory of the company. Those goods were then seized by the officers. Thereafter, the officers visited the factory premises of the company and carried out physical verification of the stock of the finished goods and the raw materials. They found that raw materials/packing materials i.e., laminated films 8.500 M.T. were not accounted in the RG 23A Part-I register and the same were also seized under panchnama dated 18.1.2000. Similarly, some finished goods were also found to be not entered in the statutory record and even no identification marks or numbers were also found on the goods. The excisable goods valued at Rs. 7,65,240 were seized. The statement of production manager Santosh Joshi (appellant) was also recorded. The depot of the appellant company was also visited by the officers and the stock lying therein was verified. There also the officers found that the goods were not having any identification marks such as, serial number, lot number or batch number. After verification, the goods were seized.
3. Thereafter another unit of the company situated at Dawal Wadi was also visited by the officers wherein the process of Supari and Katha was carried out and later on, the same were supplied to main unit of the company. On conducting physical verification, shortage of 952.7 kgs. of supari was noticed and Shri V.B. Muley who was present there, could not offer any reasonable explanation for the shortage. The premises of dealers of the company were also inspected by the officers and the relevant documents were seized from them. Appellants Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 (dealers) could not produce any document in respect of the goods lying in their stock. Another person namely Bharat Kumar Narayandas Jakhotia, partner of M/s. Versha Laxmi Investment and Marketing Company (not appellant in this appeal) also could not produce any duty paying document regarding goods lying in the stock. All these appellants allegedly admitted of having received the goods from the company without any duty paying invoices/bills.
4. The officers also during the course of investigation visited octroi depot and resumed escort passes issued from Jalna octroi naka, at Aurangabad which contained description of the material, vehicle number, date, quantity and name of the party. The statements of drivers as well as of owners of the trucks who transported the goods from the factory of the company, without duty paying documents and delivered to various dealers, were also recorded, wherein they allegedly admitted the correctness of the escort passes. The statement of V.V. Muley, excise clerk of the company was also recorded. Similarly, the statement of Director and production manager of the company (appellants No. 3 & 8) were also recorded wherein they could not explain about the escort passes. On carrying out search of the premises of M/s. Varsha Laxmi Investment and Marketing Company, one diary was also recovered which contained the details of the goods supplied by the company to that firm without proper duty paying documents. This fact was also admitted by Sushil Jaju who made entries in the private diary as well as by Bharat Kumar Narayandas Jokhotia, partner of that firm, in their statements. The officer also found from the seized escort passes that the company had cleared the goods without payment of duty to M/s. Dhanshree Sales Corporation, during the disputed period (April, 99 to January, 2000). For clandestine manufacture and removal of goods (goa-1000 gutka) during the above-said period, the company also received raw material (i.e. 1800 kgs. scented tobacco) from M/s. Suresh Enterprises, Wagholi but failed to account for the same. The goods seized from the factory and depot premises of the company as well as from the premises of the dealers/stockists, had been detailed in para 20 of the impugned order, by the adjudicating authority.
5. After completion of investigation, show cause notices were issued to the above appellants as well as to the other persons detailed in the impugned order itself. After getting, the replies wherein the company and its Director and production manager(appellants Nos. 3 & 8) denied the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods. They also denied the receipt of raw material from M/s. Suresh Enterprises. They also disputed the removal of goods covered by the escort passes. The traders i.e. appellants Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 maintained that they had purchased the goods from the depot and not from the factory of the company.
6. The learned Commissioner did not accept the version of any of the appellants and passed the impugned order against them.
7. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record.
8. We find that the impugned order confirming the duty, confiscation of vehicle, goods, imposing of penalties against the company appellant No. 1 and its Director and production manager, as well as other appellants-traders (all named above) had been passed by the adjudicating authority on the basis of these documents and evidence,(i) octroi escort passes resumed from the Jalna octroi naka; (ii) diary recovered from the premises of M/s. Varsha Laxmi Investment and Marketing Company; (iii) parallel invoices and invoices issued in the name of M/s. V.N. Food Product Pvt. Ltd.; (iv) goods seized from the dealers' premises as well as from the company's factory & depot and (v) raw material received from M/s. Suresh Enterprises.
9. The learned counsel has contended that from the above documents/evidence, relied upon by the Commissioner, the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods without payment of duty by the company and its Manager and Director, named above, did not at all stand proved. This charge, according to the counsel, had been based only on inadmissible, inadequate documents and oral evidence and as such, the impugned order of the Commissioner deserves to be set aside. Regarding imposition of penalties on the traders-appellants named above, the learned counsel has contended that there is no evidence on record to prove that they had purchased the goods from the factory of the company. Rather they purchased the goods from the depot of the company and as such, no penalty under Rule 209A could be imposed on them.
10. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner.
11. We have gone through the record. The perusal of the impugned order shows that during the investigation 183 escort passes were allegedly seized from Jalna octroi naka, Aurangabad which pertained to equal number of vehicles. On the basis of these passes, it had been worked out by the department, that the company cleared 18369 bags of goods i.e. goa-1000 gutka during the period in question i.e. April 99 to January 2000 in a clandestine manner, involving duty of Rs. 4,40,85,600. But these passes, as we find from the record, did not contain name of the company appellant No. 1 as manufacturer/consignor of the goods. Even the names of the consignees were also missing therein. Besides this, in most of the gate passes, description of the goods transported on the basis of these passes, mentioned was Meetha Masala. In some passes, the description given was goa gutka/goa-1000. The company as well as its Director and production manager, had not admitted the clearance of the goods through these escort passes. The statement of Shri V.H. Lohi, owner of vehicle No. WH 17A 660, was no doubt recorded wherein he disclosed that this vehicle belonged to him and Sukhdev Sonawani was his driver and this vehicle was hired by Padma Traders and Raj Tobacco for transporting gutka from Jalna to Sangamner. He also stated that his vehicle was used for transporting goa gutka for supplying to these traders. From the factory of the company. But he could not be said to have any personal knowledge regarding transportation of the goods as he did not accompany his driver at the time of transportation and issuance of the excort passes as detailed by him, in his statement. His statement was recorded much after the dates on which the escort passes were allegedly issued by octroi post. He had also not disclosed the details of the goods transported in his vehicle from time to time from the factory premises of the company. His statement has not been even corroborated by any person of M/s. Padma Traders and Raj Tobacco who allegedly hired his vehicle for transportation of the goods. Moreover, he himself did not stick to his statement at the time of adjudication and in the cross-examination, he denied of having made any such statement voluntarily to the department. Therefore, no credibility could be attached to his statement.
12. Similarly, the statement of Sukhdev Dhondiram Sonawane, driver of V.H. Lohe regarding transportation of the goods by him from the factory of the company for delivering to M/s. Padma Traders and Raj Tobacco from Jalna to Sangamner in his vehicle, could not be attached any legal value as he also in his cross-examination, denied of having made such a statement during investigation. He rather stated that the goods were lifted by him not from the factory premises but from the depot of the company. He even went to the extent of saying that his statement during investigation was written by the officer and he did not know its contents. Moreover, escort passes numbers, disclosed by him, in this statement, did not carry his name as driver of the vehicle or his signatures at all. He has not offered any explanation as to why he got recorded description of the goods in the escort passes at the octroi post as 'Meetha masala' when he was allegedly carrying at that time, the excisable goods i.e. branded goa gutka. His statement was also recorded after the expiry of a long period from the dates when he allegedly transported the goods. Therefore, in face of all the above facts and circumstances, he could not be said to be a credible witness, for proving clandestine transportation of the excisable goods through him by the company.
13. Similarly, the statements of Nadir B, Nilgiriwala, Dilip M. Shelar, Daryodhan H. Kadam and Yashwant Eknath Thate who claimed themselves to be the owner of the vehicles detailed in some of the escort passes, and deposed of having transported the goods from Jalna to Pune, could not be relied upon. They had also failed to disclose sufficient cause for giving wrong description of the goods in the escort passes as 'Meetha Masala' when they were allegedly carrying, at that time, 'goa-gutka'. There is also no corroboration to their evidence as none of the persons to whom they supplied the goods had corroborated their version. Their statements were also recorded much after the issuance of the escort passes. Moreover, Yaswant Eknath Thate, had disowned his statement which he allegedly made during investigation against the company. When cross-examined, he disclosed that he himself never transported the goods. His driver had been driving his vehicle who even did not come forward to corroborate his statement.
14. The clearances of the goods vide escort passes, detailed in the impugned order, by the company to M/s. Dhanshree Sales Corporation, Dehu Road, Pune who is said to be its main distributor, do not at all stand proved. Escort passes detailed in the show cause notice impugned order notice did not bear the name of this Corporation as consignee of the goods and of the appellant company as a consignor. The owner of the vehicle, Yashwant Eknath Thate who allegedly transported the goods, in his cross-examination, has denied this fact. None from the said Corporation has come forward to admit the purchase of the goods from company without bills or invoices. Therefore, it could not be presumed for want of any evidence that alleged escort passes detailed in the show cause notice/impugned order pertained to the clearance of the goods to this Corporation, by the company, in a clandestine manner.
15. All the escort passes (183 in number) brought on record are only photo copies and there is nothing on record to suggest if any attempt was made to procure the originals. The person who made entries in these gate passes, while on duty at octroi naka, has also not come forward to reiterate the correctness of the entries made therein. Even his statement was not recorded during investigation or at any other later stage. Therefore, these passes could not be considered as tangible, legal and admissible evidence against the company.
16. We also find from the impugned order that much reliance has been placed by the adjudicating authority on the private diary captioned as "575 Brigade Playing cards" recovered from the premises of M/s. Varsha Laxmi Investment and Marketing Company, during the course of investigation. In this diary, the entries are said to have been made by one Sushil Jaju of that company regarding the receipt of goa gutka from the appellant company from time to time. He has allegedly deposed also that his company had been receiving goods from the appellant company, without valid duty paying documents. The partner of that company namely Bharat Kumar N. Jakhotia had also allegedly corroborated the statement of Sushil Jaju. But, in our view, entries in the private diary kept by an employee of another company, named above, could not be used against the appellant company. These entries were made at the back of the appellant company and without their knowledge. That company had every motive to prepare such a diary for having been deprived of the dealership which earlier they had, for the sale of goa gutka, of the appellant company. No corroborative evidence has been produced by that company to prove the correctness of the entries made in the diary. They had not produced their own statement of accounts or of the ledger to show the total receipt of goa gutka from the company and the payment made from time to time, by them to the company. Shri Sushil Jaju has also not disclosed in his statement the source from where he made these entries. None of the entries in the diary carried counter signatures of an employee or authorised representative of the appellant company. The appellant company has only accepted the correctness of the challans vide which they supplied goods to Varsha Laxmi Investment and Marketing Company, during the time when there was dealership agreement with that company. The escort passes to which reference has been made by Bharat Kumar N. Jokhotia vide which the goods were allegedly received without proper documents from the appellant company carried the description of the goods as "Meetha masala/pan masala/supari". In none of those passes, the description of the goods recorded was goa gutka. This circumstance also falsified the alleged entries in the private diary of M/s. Varsha Laxmi Investment and Marketing Company, and the statements of Sushil Jaju and Bharat Kumar N. Jakhotia regarding the purchase of goa gutka from the appellant company. No explanation had been offered by them as to why the wrong description of goods was got recorded in the escort passes. Under these circumstances, in our view, the adjudicating authority has wrongly accepted and used the entries made in the private diary of third party, against the appellant company.
17. The evidence of Shri A.B. Adep, proprietor of M/s. Mahindra Tobacco, Ahmedabad, has been also wrongly relied upon by the adjudicating authority against the appellant company for holding that goa gutka was supplied to them by the company without valid documents. Shri A.B. Adep did not accept the correctness of his earlier statement which was recorded during investigation, by the department, at the back of the company. He, in his cross-examination, had stated that the earlier statement regarding the receipt of goa gutka from the appellant company without valid document, was not made by him. He, even in his letter dated 28.1.2000 also denied of having made such a statement. No doubt 15 bags of goa gutka were seized from his premises, on 18.1.2000 but those were purchased by him not from the factory of the appellant company but from the depot. He, even in reply to the show cause notice also so alleged.
18. The adjudicating authority, in our view, has also wrongly ignored the material fact that in various escort passes the destination for delivery of the goods recorded was Mumbai, whereas the appellant company was not even authorised to sell goa gutka in Mumbai as per franchise agreement- Therefore, the question of sending the goods to Mumbai by the appellant company through disputed escort passes during the disputed period, as alleged in the show cause notice, did not arise. No statement of any buyer to whom the goods were supplied at Mumbai had been recorded.
19. No doubt, the premises of various dealers/traders detailed in para 4 of the impugned order (19 in number) and out of whom 5 are the appellants in these appeals (appellants Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7). But there is no reliable evidence on record to establish the receipt of goods by them from the appellant company's factory without valid documents. The details of the goods seized from the premises of Mahindra Tobacco, owned by the appellant No. 5, M/s. Om Traders (not appellant), M/s. G.M. Bhaiya, M/s. Balaji Trading Company, M/s. Rajesh Zarda Store, M/s. New Agarwal Zarda Store, M/s. Shirdi Fan Masala, M/s. Rahul Traders, Latur, M/s. Baroliya Traders, had been detailed in the table drawn under para 20 of the impugned order. But there is no cogent evidence on record to prove that they had purchased the goods from the factory premises of the company without valid documents. The goods were purchased by them from the depot of the company and were duly duty paid, as is evident from the evidence of A.B. Adep, proprietor of M/s. Mahindra Tobacco and replies filed by Shri M.M. Oza, Amar Nath Jain, Bhal Chandra Kukarni, appellants. No reliable evidence had been brought on record to doubt the correctness of their replies to the show cause notice and to establish that they received the goods from the factory premises of the company, without valid documents.
20. The adjudicating authority has also referred to the statement made by Shri Anees Ahmed Khan, driver of the seized vehicle which was intercepted while carrying 10 bags of goa gutka of the appellant company, wherein he allegedly disclosed of having loaded the goods from factory premises of the appellant company without valid documents. But his statement could not be attached any legal weight. He, in his cross-examination, has denied of having made such a statement and rather stated that the goods were loaded by him from the depot of the appellant company. Similarly, the statement of V.B. Muley, excise clerk of the appellant company did not carry any legal evidential value as he himself did not accept the correctness of that statement and retracted the same by filing the affidavit. Even otherwise, his statement did not find any corroboration from the documentary evidence about any clandestine manufacture and removal of goods by the appellant company.
21. Similarly, the evidence of Sanjay Agarwal, Depot incharge and of Santosh Joshi, manager of the factory of the appellant company, could not be made basis by the adjudicating authority for holding the company guilty of clandestine manufacture and removal of the excisable goods in question, without payment of duty, during the period in question, as none of them had admitted in clear terms that the goods in question were manufactured in clandestine manner and then removed and cleared to various dealers without valid documents. From the statement of Sanjay Agarwal, all we find is that he did not prepare the documents while loading 10 bags of goa gutka in vehicle No. MH 16B 4270. But all the stock lying with him in the depot which was seized as detailed in the table appended to para 20 of the impugned order, were duty paid, as those were cleared from the factory premises on payment of duty. But no clandestine removal of the goods from the factory of the appellant company, from his evidence or that of Santosh Joshi, manager, stands established on the record.
22. Even from the statement of Shri K.V. Shah, Director of the appellant company, it is difficult to conclude that his company had been indulging in clandestine production and clearance of goa gutka, without payment of duty. The seized goods (10 bags) from the vehicle, as per his statement, were cleared from the depot and not from the factory. The statement of Sanjay Agarwal, depot manager, regarding non-issuance of bills in the name of M/s. Mahindra Tobacco Company has been not properly appreciated by the adjudicating authority. Rather an adverse inference has been drawn by the adjudicating authority that the goods were sold to them, by the appellant company, without any bill. He, in his statement, had corroborated the stand taken by Shri A.B. Adep, proprietor of that company, that he had not purchased the goods directly from the appellant company, but from the open market. There existed no cogent reason for not accepting his version by the adjudicating authority.
23. From the material brought on record, the allegations that the depot of the appellant company issued invoices of the same serial numbers twice involving duty of Rs. 152,640 and also issued bills in the name of M/s. V.N. Food Products Pvt. Ltd., involving duty evasion of Rs. 3,36,000, also do not at all stand established. The statement of Shri V.N. Shah, proprietor of M/s. V.N. Food Products was recorded and he had explained each and every details in this regard. The difference in the original and carbon copies of 17 invoices detailed in Annexure B-II to the show cause notice, had been fully explained. The hand writing, signature and writing style on the original copies only differed from the carbon copies, while purchaser's name, date of sale, quantity of the goods sold and the sale price recorded in the original invoices tallied with the carbon copies. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to prove that there was twice removal of goods to the buyers in a clandestine manner. No adverse inference also could be drawn on account of non-mentioning of the batch and lot numbers by the company, on the goods, for want of any evidence to show that there was a suppression of production of goods by them. No material on the record has also been brought to show that two original copies bearing the same serial numbers or two office/duplicate copies with same serial numbers were recovered from the possession of the appellant company.
24. For proving the receipt of extra raw materials i.e., 1800 kgs. of scented tobacco from M/s. Suresh Enterprises, the department has placed reliance on the entries found in that regard in the books of accounts in that concern, at the time of raid and the adjudicating authority has accepted the same for holding the appellant company guilty of evasion of duty of Rs. 13,92,000. But in our view, such evidence could not be legally accepted being inadmissible evidence, as well as for want of corroboration from any other tangible evidence. The appellant company has not accepted the receipt of that much raw material from the said company. No document or any other details had been furnished by that company to prove the actual sale of raw materials to the appellant company. None of the entries in the record of the said company carried signature of any authorised representative or official of the appellant company. No evidence regarding payment made by the appellant company towards the price of purchased raw material to the supplier M/s. Suresh Enterprises, had been also brought on record. The occular testimony of Ramesh Pardesh, regarding supply of raw material i.e. 1800 kgs. of scented tobacco by his company, to the appellant company could not be taken as legal evidence as he did not come forward to face the cross-examination in order to test his veracity. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest if any duty had been confirmed against the company for having removed and supplied the raw materials, without payment of duty, to the appellant company. Therefore, no conclusion could be drawn from the bare book entries of M/s. Suresh Enterprises regarding receipt of 1800 kgs. of scented tobacco from that concern as raw material and untilisation of the same in the manufacture of final products, by the appellant company.
25. As observed above, from none of the dealers' premises detailed in the table appended to para 20 of the impugned order, the recovery of goods supplied to them by the appellant company in a clandestine manner stands proved. The adjudicating authority in para 38(7), 38(8) and 38(9) had recorded the findings that the goods found at the premises of M/s. Shirdi Pan Masala, M/s. Rahul Traders and M/s. New Agarwal Jardha Stores, were duly duty paid and the same were purchase by them from the appellant company under the cover of duty paid bills/invoices. However, findings of the adjudicating authority that M/s. Padma.Traders, M/s. Mahindra Tobacco and Dhanshree Sales Corporation purchased the goods from the appellant company without any duty paying documents, cannot be legally sustained. M/s. Mahindra Tobacco Stores has denied the purchase of the goods (goa gutka) from the appellant company. The proprietor of that firm Shri A.B. Adep, as observed above, has disclosed that the goods were purchased from the market. He did not accept the correctness of his earlier statement recorded during investigation for having been never made by him. Similarly, D.B. Kulkarni of M/s. Padma Traders has denied the receipt of the goods in question from the appellant company, without valid documents. His denial has been wrongly ignored by the adjudicating authority when there is no evidence on record to falsify the same. The adjudicating authority could not rely upon his earlier statement recorded during investigation at the back of the appellant company when he, in his cross-examination, deposed that the said statement was never written by him but by the officer. In the escort passes through which the goods were alleged to had been received by his firm, did not contain any entry regarding purchase of goa-gutka from the appellant company. Rather, description of the goods described therein was Meetha Masala. Even the driver of the vehicle S.D. Sonawane, in his statement, denied of having transported the goods from the factory of the appellant company. He rather in his cross-examination stated that the goods were lifted by him from the depot. His cross-examination had been Wrongly over-looked by the adjudicating authority. In view of his this statement in the cross-examination, no legal value could be attached to his earlier statement recorded during the investigation at the back of the appellant company which he even denied of having made so.
26. There is not an iota of evidence on record to prove the purchase of goods in question by M/s. Dhanshree Sales Corporation from the appellant company in a clandestine manner without valid document. No statement of any employee/authorised representative/partner of that corporation had been recorded in that regard. The learned Commissioner has wrongly presumed that the said Corporation had purchased goa gutka from the appellant company, without valid document. No such presumption could be legally drawn for want of any evidence to corroborate the same.
27. The version of M/s. Varsha Laxmi Investment and Marketing Company whose premises were also searched, regarding the purchase of goods by them from the appellant company without valid document, could not be relied upon for the reasons detailed above. Moreover, that company had every motive to depose against the appellant company and prepare false evidence in the form of private diary, in order to take revenge from them for having stripped them of the dealership.
28. We also find that the appellant company submitted the names of some other companies which were also engaged in the manufacture of the same products at Jalna. But no detailed enquiry was conducted if those concerns also removed goods through the disputed escort passes or not. The list of those manufacturers had been ignored by the adjudicating authority by observing that same was not authenticated without getting any report from the field officers in that regard. The alleged seized escort passes taken from the possession of the check post at Jalna, should have been also put up to those companies in order to ascertain that these did not pertain to them. We find that the statement of one V.R. Kothari of M/s. Kothari Udyog was only recorded who disclosed that his company was manufacturing Meetha masala of different brands and were selling through their stockists M/s. Jain Agency, M/s. Hirachand Bandhu, Nasik, M/s. Panna Agency, M/s. Santosh Supari, Dhule, M/s. Dopesh Sales, Nagpur and M/s. Jai Bhola Kendra, Amravati. But his statement could not be accepted by the adjudicating authority as gospel truth without verifying its correctness. There is no material on record to suggest if any search of the premises of the above said dealers was carried out and the goods carrying the brand name 'goa gutka' were not found in their stock. The detailed (illegible) enquiry was required to be conducted regarding manufacturing activity of M/s. Kothari Udyog and other manufacturing units disclosed by the appellant company which were also working at Jalna especially when escort passes did not bear the name of the appellant company as consignor of the goods and the description of the goods in most of them recorded was Meetha masala.
29. It is well settled that charge of clandestine removal must be established against the assessee by adducing cogent, tangible, acceptable and reliable evidence and the same cannot be based on presumptions and assumptions, as observed by the Apex Court in Oudh Sugar Mills v. Union of India, 1978 (2) ELT-172 which has been followed by the Tribunal in Punjab Fibre Ltd. v. Union of India, 2002 (14V ELT-819. In the instant case, in view of the discussion made above, we find that charge of clandestine manufacture of excisable goods (goa gutka) and removal of the same without payment of duty of the disputed amount, during the period in question, does not at all stand proved against the appellant company and its Director and production manager (appellants Nos. 3 & 8). However, allegations of non-accountal of 10 bags of goa gutka which were seized from tempo valued at Rs. 84,000, 168 bags of goa gutka seized from the duty paid depot and 8.5 M.T. of laminated films seized as well as gutka valued at Rs. 7,65,200 seized from the factory premises, stands proved against appellant company. These goods had been rightly ordered to be confiscated with an option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine. But keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority for release of these goods deserves to be reduced. Therefore, we accordingly reduce the same. The redemption fine for redeeming of 10 bags of gutka is reduced to Rs. 5,000 from Rs. 17,000 as imposed by the adjudicating authority. For redemption of 168 bags seized from the duty paid deposit, redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 10,000. Similarly, for redemption of 8.5 M.T. of laminated film and gutka valued at Rs. 7,65,200 the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 20,000 each. The redemption fine for redemption of seized vehicle is also reduced to Rs. 10,000. The penalty imposed and duty confirmed alongwith interest on the company appellant No. 1, as well as penalties imposed on its Director appellant No. 3 and production manager appellant No. 8, as detailed in impugned order, are set aside. Since the charge against the other appellants for violation of Rule 209A of the Rules, in the light of the discussion made above, in our view, does not stand proved, confiscation of their seized goods and the penalties imposed on them, as detailed in the impugned order, are also set aside.
30. Consequently the impugned order is modified to the extent and manner detailed above against the appellant company, while against other appellants Nos. 2 to 8, it is set aside in toto. The appeals of ail the appellants accordingly stands disposed of, in the above terms.