2009 (6) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sh Mohan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. After examining the records, I find that there is a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Garg Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (assessee) under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that there is a separate penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on a Director of the Company under Rule 26. There are also penalties of Rs. 50,000/- each on the Manager and Excise Clerk of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he lower appellate authority is lying with the department. It is also submitted that, during the material period there was no legal requirement to maintain any statutory record of production of excisable goods. According to counsel, it was enough for the manufacturer to maintain private records. It is claimed that such record was being maintained in a computerized manner. On this basis, counsel pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nufacturer can be confiscated in terms of Rule 25(1)(b). No mens rea is required. Counsel has pointed out that clause (d) of Rule 25(1) was invoked by the lower authorities without finding mens rea against the assessee. In this context, he has also claimed support from Commissioner of Central Excise v. Kitply Industries Ltd. 2003 (162) E.L.T. 423 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it was held that mens rea requi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X