9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s out of order or not, the factual position is that, on the day when the P I officers visited the factory of the party i.e. on 14-11-1997, the party had no evidence to show that the said goods were entered in the RG 1 Register. Thus there has been infringement of Rule 53, read with Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This apart, although permission for computerisation of statutory documents had been granted to the party, they were also required to produce the printout before the Departmental Officers, in case of any fault, with the printer, the party should have maintained a parallel manual record. The party has however not maintained a parallel manual record on the ground that in the absence of computerised records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Rules 173Q, 226 and 210 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the goods valued at Rs. 53,61,856/- under seizure are liable to confiscation under the provision of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of Rule 173H. The learned Commissioner therefore confiscated the said goods. He, however allowed the same to be released on payment of Redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q for contravention of Rule 173H in respect of rejected goods received into the factory. (b) As regards allegation (1) and redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the copy of a computerised DLA sheet produced, there are reasons to find that the failure of computer has resulted in a technical mix up, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods are received without the duty paying documents. Hence Modvat credit is not in respect of these inputs received along with delivery challans, lorry receipts etc. for which a separate account is kept. Since Rule 173(H) is inapplicable in the appellants case, (i) because the process involves in converting the rejecting goods into final products amounts to manufacture; and (ii) the appellants are not clearing these goods without payment of duty second time after reprocessing, the question of seeking condonation from submitting duty paying documents under third proviso to Rule 173H(2) does not arise. Therefore the learned Commissioner s observation that the appellants submissions is an afterthought is incorrect. In any case all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
