2004 (1) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aking into consideration their cross objections. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after going through the cross objections and hearing ld. JDR. 2. In this appeal the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner by setting aside the confiscation of the unaccounted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he ratio of law laid down in Bhilai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781, has set aside the confiscation of the goods, redemption fine as well as penalty under Rule 173Q. He has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 226. 4. In the cross objections the respondents have only alleged that the entire case has been based on the assumption and presumptions as the entire leaf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w wrongly applied the ratio of law laid down in the Bhilai Conductors case (supra). He has wrongly also converted the penalty under Rule 226, from Rule 173Q. He has even ignored the fact that even under Rule 226 also, confiscation of unaccounted goods has been provided. Therefore, while converting the penalty under said rule the Commissioner (Appeals) was duty bound to maintain the confiscation of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X