2005 (12) 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

..... , Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N.V.B. Nair, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This application for rectification of mistake arises out of the order of the Tribunal's Order No. A-648/WZB/05/C-IV, dated 17-5-05. In the impugned order the Tribunal confirmed the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- imposed on the firm under Rule 173Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, holding that a penalty can be imposed on a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mistake apparent on the face of records as contended by the applicant. The Benches observation that the only grievance of the appellant was against imposition of penalty is not borne out by the grounds stated in his appeal memorandum. ROM application is allowed. In view of this the order passed earlier is recalled and the appellant is heard once again. 3. The ld. Advocate drew my attention .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The appellant is a SSI unit and has not crossed the limit set out in the exemption notification and therefore no duty is liable to be paid on the goods which are not accounted. It is argued that confiscation of goods under Rule 173Q would arise only when duty is sought to be evaded. In the present case there is no such allegation and therefore the goods should not have been confiscated. I agree w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X