2004 (2) TMI 601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri S.C. Pushkarna, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the redemption fine and penalties as detailed therein on the appellants, for non-accountal of the goods. 2. The learned counsel has contended that there had been, in fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cotton yarn (in hanks, cheese-form and cross-reels). On 29-1-2002, Officers of the Anti Evasion visited their factory premises and some stock of yarn was found in excess of the balance recorded in the GR-1 and the same was seized. But the plea of the appellants had been throughout from the very beginning that this stock was the production of one day earlier i.e. 28-1-2002 and entries were only to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in their factory. There is nothing on the record to suggest if any attempt was being made to load the goods in the vehicle or by adopting any under hand means, the goods were in the process of were being removed by the appellants. The production of the goods found excess, was of only one day earlier to the date of checking. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the excess found goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for non-posting of entries in the RG1 register, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the goods and penalties under Rule 173Q (new Rule 25). In the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. v. CCE, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 40 (AP) and Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. UOI, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.), referred by the ld. JDR facts and circumstances were not the same, as of the present case, detailed above, and there....