TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds penalty order for non-maintenance of records and excess stock violation</h1> The Tribunal upheld the order in the case involving non-maintenance of records of finished goods, confiscation of excess stock of biris, and imposition of ... - Issues: Non-maintenance of records of finished goods, confiscation of excess stock of biris, quantum of redemption fine, imposition of penalty, interpretation of Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.In this case, the respondent faced charges of non-maintenance of records of finished goods, leading to the confiscation of 8,00,000/- biris valued at Rs. 50,000/-. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the excess stock under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The Department challenged the quantum of penalty, arguing that the prescribed minimum penalty under Rule 25(1) is Rs. 10,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Department's review appeal, prompting the Department to file the present appeal against the penalty amount.The Tribunal noted that the goods were seized for exceeding the recorded balance in the register, and considering the contravention's nature, deemed the redemption fine appropriate based on the goods' value and the contravention's severity. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's argument, interpreting Rule 25(1) to set an upper limit rather than a minimum penalty. The rule states that the penalty should not exceed the duty on the excisable goods or Rs. 10,000, whichever is greater. The Adjudicating Authority has discretion to determine the penalty within this upper limit based on the offense's gravity. Consequently, the Tribunal found no issue with the imposed penalty and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order, emphasizing that the penalty amount was within the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority and aligned with the provisions of Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
