9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r packing of wheel brand detergent powder) in excess of the recorded balance in the RG 1 register. They seized this excess stock. The original authority confiscated the goods under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 with option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000/-. The authority also imposed on the appellants a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under the said provisions. The appeal preferred by the party against the order of that authority to the Commissioner (Appeals) did not succeed. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the pouches in question had been manufactured under orders placed by M/s. Hindustan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice. 4. The DR reiterated the findings as recorded in the orders of the authorities below. Referring to the technical issue raised by the counsel, ld. DR submitted that non-mention or wrong mention of any provision of law did not vitiate the adjudication proceedings. In this connection, he relied on the Hon ble Supreme Court s decisions in J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 355) and CCE, Calcutta v. Pradyumna Steel Ltd. - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 441 (S.C.). He also cited a few decisions of the Tribunal. 5. I have carefully examined the submissions. With regard to the technical objection raised by the counsel, I observe that, in the body of the show cause notice, Rule 173Q had been mentioned, although in the operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accountal of finished goods. However, there is no case of non-accountal with intention to evade payment of duty. Even the Revenue appears to have no case that the goods which were rejected by the customer was capable of being marketed, nor is there any iota of finding as to the possible manner of clearance of the goods. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to me, there should have been a finding that the goods in question were dutiable, before holding the same to have been kept without accountal for the purpose of removal without payment of duty. Therefore, it cannot be held that the goods were liable to confiscation and, consequently, there is no case for imposition of any penalty on the appellants. The order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
