9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 clearly stipulate that and all the goods of which due entry has not been made in such book, account or register shall be liable to confiscation. It is claimed that the above question of law arises from the Final Order No. A/236/99-NB(S), dated 23-3-99 passed by this Bench in Appeal No. E/488/97-NB. In support of this application, reliance has been placed on the Tribunal s decision in the cases of S. Subramanyam Co. v. Collector [1992 (59) E.L.T. 55] and Shiva Paper Mills v. Collector [1987 (27) E.L.T. 319]. 2. I have carefully perused the Final Order ibid and the grounds of the present application. I have also heard both sides. 3. Ld. SDR, Shri A.S. Bedi, reiterating the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d circumstances of the case. 4. I have examined the rival submissions. There is a clear finding in the Final Order that certain quantity of finished excisable goods had not been entered in the RG-I register by the assessee on the day prior to the date on which their factory was visited by officers of Central Excise. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal sustained a penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Rule 226 on the assessee for such non-accountal. Ld. SDR has today agreed that a case of non-accountal of finished excisable goods will be covered, for purposes of penalty, under Rule 226. The question of law, however, relates to confiscation. He has submitted that, where a penalty is imposed on an assessee under Rule 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was ordered under Rule 173Q and not under Rule 226. In the case of Shiva Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) relied on by the DR, again, I find that the confiscation was under Rule 173Q. Both the cases are totally inapplicable to the case on hand. 6. The matter on hand has also to be looked at from another angle. In the show cause notice issued by the Department, the proposal was to confiscate the unaccounted goods under Rule 173Q and impose penalty on the assessee under that rule read with Rule 226. There was no specific proposal to confiscate the goods under Rule 226. Therefore, it appears to me that the question of law framed by the Department in the present application is beyond the scope of the show cause notice itself. 7. The reference appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
