TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (8) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with S.K. Gadhok, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Vice President]. - Following questions are involved in this appeal : (i) Whether the product 'Keshamrit Shampoo' manufactured by the appellants herein, which is admittedly a KVIC unit will be liable to duty as a shampoo under Chapter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whether the fine in lieu of confiscation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- is liable to be paid by the appellant? (vi) Whether the interest is also liable to be paid on the duty demand under Section 11AB. 2. We have heard both sides. On the first issue regarding classification, we observe from the label on the product used by the appellant for selling their product that it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s :- "... I find that the party failed to inform the Department about its manufacture and did not obtain registration during the impugned period under dispute as required under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and hence, failed to discharge their statutory duties and are liable for penal action under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944." We observe that the finding of the adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garding that exemption. 5. As regards penalty, there is no warrant for imposing any penalty either on the appellant or any person in view of the fact that there is no element of mens rea in evading duty. Consequently we set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant unit as also on Shri B.B. Pandey. 6. As regards confiscation of the goods, we have already held that the appellants....