9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-De novo No. 07/2006-C.Ex. dated 30-11-2006. 2. Ld. JCDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the impugned order is incorrect inasmuch as the impugned order has dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice on the following grounds :- Since both the cases are intrinsically related and the subject goods were confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found in excess in the factory premises of the respondent on the date of visit. It is her submission that the goods are liable for confiscation and the respondent needs to be penalized for such act of violation of rules. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the decision of the Settlement Commission will squarely cover this issue also as the proceedings started ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the show cause notice that these goods were kept without entering in the records, with an intention to clear the same without payment of excise duty, is not supported by any evidence. Further, it is also seen that as regards the allegation of the clandestine removal in respect of other show cause notice, which also was issued based upon the very same investigations and visit by the officers, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... At the same time, I find that the respondents have not entered in the statutory records, which needs to be done by them as provided under the rules. This is a violation of the rules. For this kind of violation, penalty has been provided under Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. I find there is a violation of rules by the respondent in not recording the correct production figure in the statutor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
