2003 (5) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er]. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 18-7-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority by setting aside the confiscation of the seized goods and reducing the penalty from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. On 28-3-2001 while carrying .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ough the records. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Kirloskar Brothers v. Union of India - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that even in the absence of mens rea on the part of the assessee, the excess goods lying in his factory could be confiscated under Rule 173Q in the face of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X