2005 (8) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... None, for the Respondent. [Order]. - These two appeals are departmental appeals filed in the year 2000. The respondents are not present. Heard Shri N.V.B. Nair, learned J.D.R. appearing for the Department. The respondents were penalised on the ground that unrecorded stock were found on verification and the stock was also confiscated. However, on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o attempt has been made by the manufacturer to clandestine remove the final product, the goods are not liable for seizure. More so, in the present case, the seizure has been made only for a minor procedural lapse of not accounting the goods in the simple records required to be maintained by a SSI unit. Therefore, the confiscation and consequent imposition of redemption fine is invalid. It is also ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....following the Central Excise Law & Procedure. The appeals are allowed." 2. Subsequently, on department's appeal the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside by the Tribunal [2000 (125) E.L.T. 1238 (Tribunal)] but the penalty was reduced on the respondents. The Tribunal's order was passed ex parte, hence respondents filed rectification application but the same was rejected by the T....