9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. The applicants pray for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of an amount of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. 2. Examined the records and heard both the sides. Officers of Central Excise visited the applicants factory in December, 1997 and found, on stock verification, an excess of 203 bags of sugar vis-a-vis RG 1 recorded balance, and they seized the goods. The Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities below has attributed any mens rea to the applicants in their omission to account for the above goods in the RG 1. Hence the penalty imposed on them requires to be set aside. The order of confiscation is also challenged on the same ground. The learned Counsel relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Bhillai Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur reported in 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Tribunal in Bhillai Conductors case is in favour of the appellants. The High Court decision would prevail. In so far as the quantum of penalty imposed by the lower authorities is concerned, I find that the discretion conferred by the Statute has not been properly exercised by any of the lower authorities. The minimum penalty under Rule 173Q is Rs. 5,000/- and the maximum is thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
