2005 (11) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeals) who had reduced the quantum. 2. M/s. Inducto Cast, Respondents in this appeal are the manufacturers of C.I. casting, tractor parts etc, availing cenvat facility. Central Excise officers visited their premises on 28-4-2003 and detected certain anomalies. A SCN was issued on 29-7-2003 contemplating recovery of duty and imposition of penalty. When the case came up for adjudication, the As .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ial revenue of Rs. 1,26,554/-which clearly shows mala fide intent on the part of the respondents. 3. The learned advocate informs that they are allowed to make payment of duty till 5th of the next month, though he admits that record of production and clearances have not been kept up to date. According to him, even if penalty has been imposed under Rule 226, the penalty cannot be more than Rs. 2, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot overlook the confiscable nature of the goods. Therefore, Rule 25 had been correctly invoked in the show cause notice. 6. I have examined the case record and heard both sides. I do not find anything wrong in invoking Rule 25 in the subject case, as the confiscable nature of the goods lingers on even though goods may not be physically available for proceedings. I also find that the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X