9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods. Department failed to prove the element of mens rea for imposition of penalty. Appeal dismissd. - 137 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2010 - Ashutosh Mohunta and Mehinder Singh Sullar, JJ. Shri Kamal Sehgal, Sr. Panel Counsel, for the Appellant. Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral)]. - The Revenue has impugned the order (Annexu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent concern was unable to give a satisfactory reply for not recording the finished goods in the RG-1 register. It was stated by him that as he was away for few days, hence there was a negligence on part of the staff. 3. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent, who replied to the same. However, it was found that the respondent intended to clandestinely remove the finished pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the Revenue has vehemently argued that the respondent had mens rea and the intention to remove the finished products clandestinely. The goods were duly finished and the same had not been annealed and painted. It is contended that in order to sell alloy slabs and rounds, it is not necessary to anneal and paint the said goods and that the respondent in their manufacturing process submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods were meant for clandestine removal. Both the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal have returned a concurrent finding of fact that there was no mens rea on part of the respondent to clandestinely remove the goods. 9. The appellant had formulated the following question of law for adjudication by this Court :- "Whether "mens-rea" is a pre-condition for confiscation of unaccounted exciseable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
