TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble with the Chartered Accountant of the appellant company, the allegation leveled against the assessee, justifying confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty are not legal and proper supported by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CCE vs Saurasthra Cement Ltd, [2010 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Supreme Industries Ltd. vs CESTAT, New Delhi, [2007 (5) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT,MADHYA PRADESH] that in absence of fraud, collusion, suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25 ibid. Therefore, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are not in conformity with the sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant submits that the allegation of the Department that no records as contemplated under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, has not been maintained by the appellant is factually incorrect inasmuch as the appellant maintained the daily production account and entered the manufacturing particulars therein. According to him, on the date of visit of the Central Excise Officers, the daily stock account was available in the office of Chartered Accountant who took the said register for the purpose of preparation VAT returns. He further submits that maintenance of records by the appellant has also been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order at paragraph 4.3. It has been observed that the stock register was produced before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods have not been removed from the factory and in view of the fact that the stock accounts have been maintained, which at the material time, was available with the Chartered Accountant of the appellant company, the allegation leveled against the assessee, justifying confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty are not legal and proper. I find support from the above referred judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that in absence of fraud, collusion, suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25 ibid. 7. In view of the above, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
