JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the CESTAT" for short), in Appeal No. E/89/2006 dated 29/5/2007 by which the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein - assessee and has reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 4,91,000/- to Rs. 1,00,00/- and also reduced the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2000/-only, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 2. On the basis of the search carried out at the premises of the appellant engaged in the manufacturing of recycling of different types of metals like Zinc, Copper, Brass, Aluminum, Lead, Cable, Rubbers etc., it was found that the entire quantity of finished goods found in the premises of the assessee - Plot No. 14, GIDC, Phase 11, Dared, Jamnagar was in excess on computation of physical stock with the stock mentioned in the statutory records and the difference in the physical stock could not be explained by the concerned persons of the assessee and therefore, the goods found in excess were placed under seizure total weighing 29.500 MTs valued at Rs. 19,64,000/- and the said seized goods were handed over for safe custody under the proper Supratnama. Statement of Mr. Bhavesh D. Bhansali, Excise Assistant of M/s. Mitesh Impex was recorded under the provisions of section 14 of the Central Excise Act on 27/4/2004. The statement of one Mr. Ramesh P. Lavati, Partner of M/s. Mitesh Impex was also recorded. That thereafter a show cause notice came to be issued by the Joint Commissioner by which the appellant herein was called upon to show cause as under :- "(i) the excisable goods viz. 21500 Kgs of Copper Scrap in picket Form, 3960 Kgs of Aluminum Scrap in Bricket Form and 4040 Kgs of Copper Scrap packed in gunny bags totally valuing Rs. 19,64,000 seized under the Panchnama dated 27/28.4.2004 should not be confiscated under the provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and if the party fails to produce the goods liable to confiscation before the Adjudicating Authority upon their provisional release, why the conditions of the bound furnished by them should not be enforced. (ii) Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, for the aforesaid contravention should not be imposed on them." 2.1. That thereafter the adjudicating authority has passed Order-in-Original after considering the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the appellant - assessee, confiscating all the seized goods total valued at Rs. 19,64,000/-under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority gave an option to pay redemption fine of Rs. 4,91,000/-. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the assessee - M/s. Mitesh Impex under Rule 25 of the Rules read with section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order-in-Original, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the said appeal. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the Order-in-Original, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned tribunal and by the impugned judgment and order the learned tribunal has partly allowed the said appeal confirming the order of confiscation, however, the learned tribunal has reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 4,91,000/- to Rs. 1,00,00/- and also reduced the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2000/-. 2.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 3. It is mainly contended by Mr. Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - assessee that the assessee was registered as 100% E.O.U. and therefore, was not liable to maintain registers as per the statutory rules. It is submitted that even otherwise, when the learned tribunal has found that no clandestine removal has been alleged or found by the authorities, and therefore, the learned tribunal is not justified in confirming the order of confiscation and consequently reducing the redemption fine only. Making above submissions it is requested to allow the present appeal. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Mr. Chintan Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent department. It is submitted that as such there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by all the authorities below with respect to confiscation of goods on the ground that the assessee did not maintain relevant books of accounts/registers. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Mr. Chintan Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent department. It is submitted that as such there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by all the authorities below with respect to confiscation of goods on the ground that the assessee did not maintain relevant books of accounts/registers. It is submitted that it was found that there was difference in the books of accounts and physical stock and therefore, confiscation is rightly held to be justified. It is submitted that despite the above, taking a lenient view, the learned tribunal has reduced redemption fine from Rs. 4,91,000/- to Rs. 1,00,00/- and reduced the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2000/-. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by all the authorities below that at the time of search the assessee did not maintain proper/relevant registers. It was also found that the entire quantity of finished goods found in the premises of the assessee was in excess on computation of physical stock with the stock mentioned in the statutory records and the assessee could not explain the difference in the physical stock and as such the same has been admitted by the Excise Assistant and Partner of the assessee. From the statements of the aforesaid two persons of the assessee it is clear that they have admitted that they have not maintained statutory records with an intent to remove the same without preparation of invoices and without payment of any duty. They have also admitted that the good found were finished goods. Therefore, proper registers were required to be maintained. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case when it was found that the relevant and statutory registers were not maintained and when it was also found that the quantity of finished goods found were in excess, it cannot be said that the authorities below have committed any error in confirming the order of confiscation of the goods seized. 5.2. Now, so far as the imposition of redemption of fine is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such taking a very lenient view the learned tribunal itself has reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 5.2. Now, so far as the imposition of redemption of fine is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such taking a very lenient view the learned tribunal itself has reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 4,91,000/- to Rs. 1,00,00/- and has also reduced the penalty from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2000/- only. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error. The learned tribunal itself has taken a very lenient view. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The questions of law are answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.