9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Directors of the appellant-company were also recorded by the officers under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. On the basis of the investigative results, the department framed a case for confiscating the seized goods and imposing penalty on the party. Accordingly, they issued a show cause notice to the appellants proposing confiscation of the seized goods under Rules, 173Q and 226 and imposition of penalty on the party. The proposals were contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner confiscated the goods under Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 but gave an option to the party to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the goods in the statutory records. On the basis of such finding, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and penalty. 4. Ld. Counsel, Shri Naveen Mullick for the appellants submits that the lower appellate authority has specifically found that the appellants had no intent to evade payment of duty on the goods. The contravention of law alleged in the show cause notice was that of Rules 53 and 173G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Any contravention of Rules 53 and 173G has been held to be a contravention of Clause (d) of Rule 173Q(1) by this Tribunal in a line of decisions, submits ld. Counsel. With reference to the case law, ld. Counsel further submits that, for invoking Clause (d) ibid against an assessee, mens rea is a neces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions. It is noted that the department, in the show cause notice, had alleged against the appellant's contravention of three specific Rules viz. Rules, 53, 173G and 226. The adjudicating authority appears to have found such contravention against the party. But when the matter came to the first appellate stage, Rule 226 receded from reckoning and only the alleged contravention of Rules 53 and 173Q survived. The lower appellate authority has upheld the confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q. The question which now arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the confiscation and penalty can be sustained under the Rule. Non-accountal of the seized goods is an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
