2004 (6) TMI 364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yer to decide the appeal on the basis of written submission filed by them. Accordingly, I have heard Shri A.K. Saxena, ld. JDR for the Revenue. 2. Vide his impugned order the lower authorities have confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 6,921/- against M/s. Kapoor Machinery Stores along with imposition of penalty of identical amount under Section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issued covering the entire consignment but due to mistake the same were not handed over to the transporters. On subsequent enquiries the same were produced to the visiting officers. The said invoices have been raised in respect of the goods in question and debit entries made in RG 23A Part II. The same was submitted along with RT 12 returns and as such it was not the case of non-payment of duty b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... raised for the said goods and therefore it does not warrant confiscation is not acceptable, inasmuch as rectifying one s lapse of fatal nature, do not wipe away its ill-effects. 5. I do not agree with the above reasoning of Commissioner (Appeals). When the goods were duty paid and the debit duly recorded, confiscation of goods in question is not justifying on the sole ground that the invoices we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X