9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... falling under chapter sub-heading No. 4802,4801 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On physical verification of stock by the department, unaccounted stock of the impugned goods were found, which was not accounted in the RG1 Register. Apart from demand of duty along with interest, redemption fine and equal penalty were imposed and also imposed equal penalty on Shri M. Balasubramanian, Managing Direcoter of the appellant company, which was subsequently waived by the Commissioner (Appeals). Apart from this, three issues were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel Shri J. Shankararaman, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant company submits that the goods which were found to have been un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the amount of duty payable and duty actually paid etc. Hence, failure to maintain RG1 register (daily stock account) is itself in contravention of Rule 10(1), apart from having excess physical stock over and above the RG1 register. He further submitted that in view of the above, it is evident that the appellant had deliberate intention to clear the unaccounted goods without payment of duty. He further submitted that penalty was rightly imposed under Rule 25 (1) (b) and redemption fine was also rightly imposed and pleaded to uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records and the documents filed by the Ld. Advocate, I find that the appellant assessee is regularly paying the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand of duty in respect of the raw material. Duty in respect of finished goods, on the finding as already observed, would be paid by the appellants at the time of clearance of the goods. As regards the penalty, I find that admittedly, the appellants had not maintained the records properly though there may not be any intention on their part to clear the same clandestinely. For non-maintenance of record, penalty under the provision of Rule 25 is imposable. I, accordingly, reduce the penalty under the said provision on M/s. Camex Intermediates Ltd. to Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). Penalty on the Director is, however, set aside." 6. By respectfully following the ratio laid down by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
