2003 (10) TMI 518

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. In this appeal, M/s. S.R. Industries Ltd. are challenging the penalty imposed on, and redemption fine demanded from them. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are 100% Export-Oriented Undertaking; that the Central Excise Officers, on their visit to the factory premises on 11-10-1999, found goods val .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Ispat v. C.C.E., Mumbai-III, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 800 (Tribunal - L.B.); that accordingly, it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that they have contravened the provisions of Sections 111(d) and 111(o) and consequently, no penalty is imposable under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, submitted that it is not di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants have not disputed that the goods were lying in their factory premises unaccounted in the prescribed records. They have also not challenged the imposition of penalty under the provisions of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is upheld by us. In view of the fact that the goods were lying in the factory premises unaccounted, the same are liable for confiscation and the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X