2002 (8) TMI 868

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeals against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard both sides. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the factory of the appellant was visited by the Officers of the Revenue and it was found that there is shortage of raw material on which Modvat credit was availed. On pointing out by the Revenue the appellant deposited the amount of ₹ 1,64,873/- in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iately deposited. Therefore, they are not liable for any penal action. The appellants also submitted that Section 11AC provides the maximum limit of benefit and the adjudicating authority has the discretion to impose lesser penalty. The appellants has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... found excess in the factory, the contention of the appellant is that they are liable for contravention of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules. This Rule also provides for the confiscation of the goods not entered in any statutory record. Therefore, the confiscation of the goods found excess in the factory is also upheld. However, taking into facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X