2000 (6) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ht stay of the operation of the Commissioner(Appeals)' order. The respondents were not present but had sent submissions seeking disposal. On perusal of the proceedings it appeared that the issue being short, the appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. This was done after hearing Shri Choubey, JDR for the appellant Commissioner. 2. The Asstt. Commissioner in the impugned order had conf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in. However, the provisions have been made making it obligatory on their part to maintain simple record showing production and clearance, which admittedly the appellants have failed to maintain. Be it as it may, this is not the valid reason for seizure of the goods and its confiscation. It is a well settled law that if the goods are lying in the factory premises and no attempt has been made by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... resent, the penalty cannot be imposed, in the same manner, the ingredients of rule 209A are also absent in the case of penalisation of the Director of the appellant firm. Therefore, the penalty imposed in the impugned order is not sustainable. 3. The respondents had reiterated the claim made by them before the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. I find that in the recent past conscious departure was m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X