9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r]. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 30-11-2000 vide which she has upheld the Order-in-Original dt. 6-10-98 regarding confiscation of seized goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty on them but reduced redemption fine from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- and penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods in RG-1 register would not attract rule 173Q, in the absence of evidence to show that the intention of the assessee was to remove the goods clandestinely. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR has reiterated the correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) and argued that since the goods were found to be non accounted in RG-1 register, at the time of verification of the stock by the excise prevent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q(b) of the Rules for non-accountal of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order had reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 20,000/- and penalty amount to Rs. 15,000/-. 6. It is well settled law that for mere non-accountal of the goods, the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Rules cannot be invoked in the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of verification of stock. It is also not the case of the Revenue that on any earlier occasion, the appellants were found involved in the manufacture and clearances of goods clandestinely. Even after seizure of the goods in the present case which was made on 2-7-98, there is nothing on record to suggest that such a lapse of non-accountal of the finished goods in the RG-1 register, had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
