2005 (10) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e relates to non-accountal of goods in RG - 1 register. He submits that a grey fabric was duly recorded in the lot register and the same has not been entered subsequently in RG - 1 register. He also submits that there is no fault on the part of appellants as the goods were removed on payment of excise duty and at the time of visiting of officers from department, the goods were lying within factory .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lty of Rs. 2000/- only can be imposed under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In an other decision in the case of Anil Sunil Trade Investments (P). Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-III reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 616 (Tri.-Bang.), the Tribunal has held that when the goods are lying in the factory but not accounted in RG-1 and no evidences have been brought on record to show that the attempt wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard. Since the goods were lying in the factory and at the time when the inspection was made and no material evidence has been brought on record to prove that there was any attempt to remove the goods, I agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 a maximum penalty of Rs. 2000/- can be impo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X