2016 (11) TMI 1491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rs of goods manufactured in the factory on the date of visit of the Central Excise Officers. Thus, there is violation of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for which goods can be confiscated and penalty can be imposed under Rule 25 ibid - considering the fact that the seized goods were lying in the factory and were not removed clandestinely by the appellant, the quantum of redemption fine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s detected by the Officers that the appellant has not incorporated the up-to-date production particulars in the daily stock register. On the basis of non-maintenance of records, the Department adjudicated the matter vide order dated 30-10-2009, in confiscating the unaccounted goods valued at ₹ 39,61,800/- and given option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine 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 other hand, reiterates the findings recording in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant had not maintained the daily stock account, incorporating the particulars of goods manufactured in the factory on the date of visit of the Central Excise Officers. Thus, there is violation of Rule 10 of the Central Excise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X