2004 (11) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order]. -  In this appeal the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the confiscation and imposition of the redemption fine, in respect of the seized goods after reversing the order-in-original. He has also reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 226, on the respondents. 2. The learned SDR has contende .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ese were not lying in the finished room. Besides these goods, no discrepancy in the record regarding the finished goods or even the raw material was found by the officers. At the spot, when the Panchnama was prepared, the representative of the respondents categorically stated that these goods had not reached the finished stage for entering in the RG-1 Register and these were kept in the inspection .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... finishing room in packed or loose condition in the RG-1 Register, not of the goods which had not reached the finished stage. The ratio of the law laid down in the above referred cases by the learned SDR, is not attracted to the facts of the present case in view of the facts and circumstances, detailed above. 4. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X