TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As the appellant was not maintaining proper account of their inputs, therefore, the penalty is imposable in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Unimark Remedies Ltd. (2005 (6) TMI 197 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ). In the circumstances, impose penalty of ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) on the appellant for non accounting of raw materials in the statutory records. With regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss at the time of search are liable for confiscation and consequently redemption fine and penalty can be imposed on the assesse or not. 3. The said issue has come up before this Tribunal is the case of Unimark Remedies Ltd. vs. CCE, Vapi-2006 (204) ELT 49 (Tri. Mumbai) Wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- 7. Similarly in respect of the raw material which where not found entered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not correctly accounted for in the appellant s record, there is no provision for confiscation of such alleged unaccounted inputs under Rule 25 and imposition of penalty on this count. I find that on this point, the Tribunal in the case of Unimark Remedies Ltd. v. CCE, Vapi (supra) hold that for non-accounted of inputs confiscation of inputs and imposition of penalty is not sustainable. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
