TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refills vis-a-vis RG-I Register as on the said date. They also found an excess quantity of 31 glass refills of a different variety. Statements of officials of the company were recorded, wherein the discrepancies were admitted. The excess goods were seized in a mahazar. After more than one year, the Department issued show-cause notice dated 14-9-1998 to the appellants demanding differential duty of Rs. 1,11,604/- on 26,147 glass refills under Rule 223A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and proposing penalties on them under Rules 223A, 223, 226 and 173Q of the said Rules. The demand was contested. In adjudication, the original authority confirmed the demand of duty under Rule 223A and imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Rule 173Q. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso be entertained. 3. Show-cause notice demanded duty on the goods found short, under Rule 223A, and the original and first appellate authorities sustained the demand. The above Rule had provided for periodical inspection and verification of a manufacturer's stock and records by the Department. In the event of shortage of any excisable goods being found upon physical stock-taking vis-a-vis statutory records, the manufacturer or his authorized representative was liable to pay the entire amount of duty chargeable on the goods found short. This liability was declared by Rule 223A. This Rule also cast penal liability on the manufacturer for improper maintenance of stock and records. The rule also prescribed maximum penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the party under Rule 173Q. This rule was also invoked in the show-cause notice. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the applicable clause of Rule 173Q was not specified in the notice, nor in the orders of the authorities below. In the circumstances, it is argued, the penalty is liable to be set aside. Ld. SDR has opposed this argument. It is submitted that, where non-mention of a provision of law in a show-cause notice does not vitiate the proceedings, a notice, wherein a penal provision has been invoked without specifying any particular clause thereof, cannot be said to be vitiated on account of non-mention of such clause. 5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we are not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
