2006 (11) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri S.L. Meena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal is directed against order in original dated 31st December 2003 which confiscated the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed penalty on the appellant. 2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are that the appellant was engaged in manufacture o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd for imposition of penalty. The appellant moved the competent authority under KVSS scheme for the demand of the duty and proposition of penalty on the clandestinely removed goods. The competent authority allowed the application for KVSS for such goods, but in respect of the seized goods found excess no relief under KVSS was granted. The adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods with an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ens rea for confiscation of the goods which are not accounted in the records. 6. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. It is seen from the record that it is not in dispute 463 tyres were found unaccounted in the statutory RG 1 register. The contention of the appellant that since the goods were lying in the factory, there could not be any confiscation. This argu....