2018 (2) TMI 913

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mohanty The issue involved in this case relates to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel flat, billets etc. falling under Chapter 72 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The premises of the appellant were visited by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. He further submitted that the appellant maintained the daily stock account on regular basis and enters the manufactured particulars at the end of the day. He also submitted that since the search operation was conducted on 29.9.2010, at 2.00 P.M., there was no scope on the part of the appellant to record the production particulars of the goods in the statutory records and thus, there were some e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... k particulars were verified by the department on the said date at 2.00 P.M. Further, it is not the case of the department that the appellant had the intention to remove the excess availability of goods in clandestine manner. Thus, I am of the view that the provisions of Rule 25 cannot be invoked for imposition of redemption fine and penalty against the appellant. Further, I also find that departme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X