2004 (8) TMI 574

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation No. (1) found that without going into the veracity as to whether the party's printer was out of order or not, the factual position is that, on the day when the P & I officers visited the factory of the party i.e. on 14-11-1997, the party had no evidence to show that the said goods were entered in the RG 1 Register. Thus there has been infringement of Rule 53, read with Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This apart, although permission for computerisation of statutory documents had been granted to the party, they were also required to produce the printout before the Departmental Officers, in case of any fault, with the printer, the party should have maintained a parallel manual record. The party has however not m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d procedures laid thereunder. The contention made by the party appeals to be an after thought. The party are liable to penalty under Rules 173Q, 226 and 210 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the goods valued at Rs. 53,61,856/- under seizure are liable to confiscation under the provision of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of Rule 173H. The learned Commissioner therefore confiscated the said goods. He, however allowed the same to be released on payment of Redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q for contravention of Rule 173H in respect of rejected goods received into the factory. (b)     As regards allegation (1) and redemption fine of Rs. 6,....