2002 (4) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... RG-1. The department, by show-cause notice, proposed to confiscate the stock and impose penalty on the manufacturer under Rule 223B(2). No reply was given to the notice, nor did the manufacturer appear before the adjudicating authority in spite of notice of hearing. The adjudicating authority, therefore, confiscated the goods, totally valued at Rs. 1,73,440/-, with an option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000/-. That authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the manufacturer under Rule 223B. In the appeal preferred by the manufacturer against the order of the Asstt. Commissioner, the party did not contest the penalty but challenged the confiscation and redemption fine on the ground that non-filing of pre-bud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not contested by them. The party also did not respond to the notice of hearing issued by the adjudicating authority. The said authority, therefore, passed an ex parte order against the respondents confiscating the stock of excisable goods (with option for redemption on payment of Rs. 30,000/-) and imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the party under sub-rule (2) of Rule 223B. The order of the Asstt. Commissioner was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). In that appeal, however, the party did not press their challenge vis-a-vis the penalty imposed under Rule 223B(2). The contest was only against the confiscation and redemption fine. That contest succeeded. Hence the Revenue's appeal. 3. Reiterating the grounds of the appeal,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....turer of excisable goods has to file a declaration of the stock of such goods, furnishing particulars of the last gate pass/invoice issued up to 6 P.M. on the pre-budget day. Under sub-rule (2), any such manufacturer, who fails to file the declaration in the manner prescribed under sub-rule (1) is liable to penal action and all the excisable goods in respect of which declaration has not been made are liable to confiscation. In the instant case, the respondents admittedly did not file the required pre-budget declaration of the stock of excisable goods. Before the adjudicating authority, they did not contest the department's proposal for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. Before the lower appellate authority, the party did n....