2003 (8) TMI 263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pouches (each meant for packing of 'wheel' brand detergent powder) in excess of the recorded balance in the RG 1 register. They seized this excess stock. The original authority confiscated the goods under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 with option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000/-. The authority also imposed on the appellants a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under the said provisions. The appeal preferred by the party against the order of that authority to the Commissioner (Appeals) did not succeed. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the pouches in question had been manufactured unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. 4. The DR reiterated the findings as recorded in the orders of the authorities below. Referring to the technical issue raised by the counsel, ld. DR submitted that non-mention or wrong mention of any provision of law did not vitiate the adjudication proceedings. In this connection, he relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 355) and CCE, Calcutta v. Pradyumna Steel Ltd. - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 441 (S.C.). He also cited a few decisions of the Tribunal. 5. I have carefully examined the submissions. With regard to the technical objection raised by the counsel, I observe that, in the body of the show cause notice, Rule ....