TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (1) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of resistance wire, an excisable product and are registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 8-6-1996, the Central Excise Officers of Varanasi Division visited the appellants' factory premises and conducted checking of stock of raw materials and finished goods. During the course of checking, 747.715 kgs. of Kanthal L.T. hardwire being packed in 54 boxes were found lying on production floor of the unit which were found to be unaccounted for in any of the Central Excise records and as such, the goods being in excess than what was recorded in the RG 1 Register were seized by the officers. Show cause notice was issued accordingly asking the appellants as to why 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that contravention of Rule 49(4) is not there, as the said sub-rule was omitted with effect from 20-5-1994 vide Notification No. 23/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 20-5-1994. However, he confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the appeal filed by the party. 5. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the main point to be considered in this case is whether redemption fine was justified if the goods were not accounted for in the RG 1 Register. He submitted that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has categorically held in the case of Galada Continuous Castings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad and Others reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 408 that redemption fine was justified....