https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90926 Excess finished goods had to be accounted for in RG 1 at the time of clearance, and raw material was also required to be entered in the prescribed records. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting confiscation of the excess raw material. The reduction of penalty was also consistent with Rule 226, which prescribed a statutory ceiling of Rs. 2,000. The appellate view therefore stood, and the departmental challenge failed. en-us Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:05:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90926 Excess finished goods had to be accounted for in RG 1 at the time of clearance, and raw material was also required to be entered in the prescribed records. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting confiscation of the excess raw material. The reduction of penalty was also consistent with Rule 226, which prescribed a statutory ceiling of Rs. 2,000. The appellate view therefore stood, and the departmental challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90926