2002 (2) TMI 405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to be not liable to confiscation when the provisions of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 clearly stipulate that "......and all the goods of which due entry has not been made in such book, account or register shall be liable to confiscation." It is claimed that the above question of law arises from the Final Order No. A/236/99-NB(S), dated 23-3-99 passed by this Bench in Appeal No. E/488/97-NB. In support of this application, reliance has been placed on the Tribunal's decision in the cases of S. Subramanyam & Co. v. Collector [1992 (59) E.L.T. 55] and Shiva Paper Mills v. Collector [1987 (27) E.L.T. 319]. 2. I have carefully perused the Final Order ibid and the grounds of the present application. I have also heard both s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w as formulated by the applicant arises out of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. I have examined the rival submissions. There is a clear finding in the Final Order that certain quantity of finished excisable goods had not been entered in the RG-I register by the assessee on the day prior to the date on which their factory was visited by officers of Central Excise. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal sustained a penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Rule 226 on the assessee for such non-accountal. Ld. SDR has today agreed that a case of non-accountal of finished excisable goods will be covered, for purposes of penalty, under Rule 226. The question of law, however, relates to confiscation. He has submit....