9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order-in-appeal dated 8-5-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner who ordered the confiscation of the goods found lying unaccounted in the factory premises of the appellants and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. On visit to the factory premises of the appellants on 8-7-99 and 9-7-99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scation of the seized goods with option to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants. That order had been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order. 3. I have heard both sides. It remains undisputed that 971 PVC rigid films of different width and length weighing 22.180 Kgs. and rejected PVC f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the letter "H" or "R" and not that they should keep the goods in their stock without making entry in the register. The procedure followed by the appellants is not permitted or accepted under any Central Excise Rule or under any Departmental instructions. The goods under the Rules are required to be entered in the RG-1 register after manufacture. The manufacturing process in respect of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not fully manufactured and for that reason were not entered in the RG-1 register. Even Shri Vijay Bodhankar, Works Manager in his statement recorded during the investigation did not state this. 5. The argument of the Counsel that since the goods are lying in the factory could not be ordered for confiscation, cannot be accepted in view of the Bombay High Court judgment in Kirloskar Brothers v. Uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
