9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 400013 (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) have filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No. Addl/GI/8/98(UN), dated 15-9-1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, I/c. Division G-I, Mumbai-IV Commissionerate. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant had removed/cleared excisable goods from their factory premises after 18.00 hrs. on pre-budget da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 224 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. According to the appellant, there was no deliberate intention to violate any provisions of the rule, nor have they entered any wrong or incorrect particulars on the invoices. All the goods were covered under valid document and all the entries in the RG 1, EB-4, and PLA were correct. The mistake of not obtaining prior permission was not intentional, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, I could have considered the impugned order as reasonable as it is, I find that the impugned order is passed without any application of mind, imposing such a heavy penalty under Rule 173Q when the maximum penalty imposable under Rule 223B for violation of Rule 224 is only Rs. 2,000/-. I find that the confiscation of the seized goods and the imposition of fine, in lieu of confiscation has also b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
