2002 (5) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed by the appellant against the order dated 31-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The issue relates to seizure of goods. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellants were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification and as per the small scale exemption, they were entitled for the clearance of go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted that the Tribunal in this case has held that such unaccounted goods which are lying in the factory are not eligible for confiscation and no penalty can be imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules in the absence of any mens rea to evade payment of duty. He submitted that at the most, a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- can be imposed under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules for not maintainin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... buttal by the Department on the above submission. 2. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned JDR has appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. He relied on the decision in the case of Perfect Industries reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 535 and Natco Pharma Ltd. reported in 2001 (136) E.L.T. 282 (T). 3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X