2006 (8) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te, for the Respondent. [Order]. These two appeals have been filed by the department. Heard the learned SDR for the department Shri V.S. Sejpal, learned Advocate appears for M/s. Modison Ltd. There is no representation for other respondents M/s. Odyssey Aircon Pvt. Ltd. 2. In both the cases, the lower appellate authority has set aside the confiscation and reduced the penalty on the gro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e now taken up for final disposal. 3. Shri V.S. Sejpal, learned Advocate points out that in these cases though the impugned goods were not-accounted for in the RG-1 register, the same were accounted for in the other record maintained by the respondents. I find that the lower appellate authority has recorded the fact of the goods having been not accounted for in the RG-1 Register in both the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts. Hence, he has taken a lenient view and has not ordered confiscation of the impugned goods, which is reasonable and the same does not require any interference. 5. As regards reduction in penalty, the lower appellate authority has reduced the same to Rs. 2000/- after holding that mens rea is essential to warrant confiscation and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(b). Since his presumpti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X