1997 (5) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ma, Member (T)]. Shri S.D. Gaur, ld. Consultant, appearing for the appellants submits that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala; that during the month of December 1991, the appellants increased the price of Pan Masala; that with the increase in price, the demand suddenly went down and there was accumulation in stock. He submits that because of this extraordinary phenom .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he factory cannot be confiscated. The ld. Counsel also submits that imposition of penalty was too harsh; if at all there was non-accountal of goods etc., penalty should be governed by Rule 226 which envisages a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- only. 2. Shri Jangir Singh, ld. JDR, appearing for the respondent Commissioner submits that the facts of the case are clear; that recording production in RG 1 Regis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sition. Since these goods were not recorded in RG 1 Register and were in a form that without any further requirement they could be taken out any moment, confiscation of the goods is justified. In the case cited by the Appellant, there were various stages and the Tribunal in that case held that the goods had not reached the stage of marketability and, therefore, in that case confiscation of the goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X