9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued proposing confiscation and penalty. Accordingly, the lower authorities confiscated the impugned goods and allowed to redeem on a fine of ₹ 3,00,000/- and a penalty of ₹ 2,07,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that in this case it is an admitted fact that at the time of visit of officers, the goods were not entered in the RG1 register and it was explained to the department that the person dealing with the excise records was on leave and the appellant himself was out of town hence, the goods cannot be entered in the statutory records. There is no allegation that these goods were meant for clande ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vapi v. Modison Ltd. - 2006 (203) E.L.T. 521 (Tri.-LB) wherein the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has held that for confiscation and penalty under Rule 25 sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) mens rea is not required and on relying on the said decision in the case of Wearwell Tyre Tube Ind. (P) Ltd. - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 265 (Tri.-Del.) has held the same view. Hence, the impugned order is sustainable. 5. Heard both sides. 6. I have gone through the facts of the case and in this case it is an admitted fact that at the time of visit the finished goods were not entered in the RG1 register which have been explained by the appellant before the authorities. It is also true that in show cause notice it has not been mentioned under which clause of Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to invoke Rule 25. The decision of the Larger Bench is of no support to the learned DR as after the Larger Bench, the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court have dealt with the issue and I am bound by the judicial discipline to follow the decision of the higher forum. Accordingly, following the decision of Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Sadashiv Ispat Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that to invoke the provisions of Rule 25(a), (b) and (c) ibid, mens rea is required. In this case, in the absence of mens rea, the provisions of Rule 25 ibid are not invocable. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. (Pronounced in Court on 6-10-2010) - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
