TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the factory premises from where the goods were loaded. Checking of the records of the factory revealed that no debit entry was made in RG 23A Part II. The goods were, therefore, seized alongwith the tempo. 2. On physical verification of the stocks, an excise of goods valued at Rs. 17,77,205/- to the recorded balance was found. The excess goods were seized as they were not accounted in Central Excise records. Statements were recorded. Shri K.B. Kejariwal, Director of the appellant s firm in his statement stated that the goods were cleared from their factory and actually no duty was debited in RG 23A Pt. II. It was stated that the person who prepared the invoices had to rush back to look after his ailing wife. Shri Kejariwal admitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable on the date of the interception of the tempo with goods. We note that the goods were covered by the invoices, the description of the goods and the quantity given in the invoice tallied with the goods loaded in the tempo. But the fact remains that till the time of the visit of the officers, the duty stated to have been debited in RG 23A Part II was actually not debited. Ld. Counsel for the appellant cited the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. CCE reported in [2001 (131) E.L.T. 98 (T) = 2001 (45) RLT 412]. It was submitted by the appellant that in this case the Tribunal held that nominal penalty under Rule 173Q was leviable when goods are removed under excise invoice without making debit entry in PLA tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ariwal, Director in his statement recorded on the spot on 25-9-97 admitted the wrong availment of Modvat credit on the above mentioned goods and voluntarily debited the said amount in RG 23A Part II. Since no further evidence was produced before us in this regard, we do not see any reason to interfere with this part of the order. 6. In regard to imposition of penalty, we note that a penalty of Rs. 1,83,363/- has been imposed. We have summarised our views and observations in the above paragraphs. Looking to all the facts of the case, the evidence on record and the submissions made before us, we hold that the penalty is on the higher side. The penalty is, therefore, reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. 7. But for the above modification, the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
