9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals are arising out of common order, they are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Wing Harness and Components for motor vehicles. On 17-2-2006 the Central Excise Officers visited the factory and conducted stock verification. The said officers found shortage of finished goods of 82144 nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant No. 2 under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Hence, both the appellants filed these appeals. 3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that Shri Sandeep Goswami, Head (CFA) of the appellant-company on the spot explained the reason for such discrepancy as clerical error. He also submits that in reply to show cause notice dated 3-7-2006 the appellants contended that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CCE, Rajkot, reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 525 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 4. Learned D.R. on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that it is admitted position that the goods were found in excess then the RG-1 stock. He also submits that confiscation of the goods of excess quantity, no mens rea is essential. He further submits that imposition of penalty and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d contravention of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. So, confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty for contravention of Rule 10 is justified. However, in my view the amount of fine and penalty is highly excessive. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I uphold the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty but, redemption fine and penalty are reduced to Rs. 25,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
