TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. Show cause notice dated 7-10-93 was issued to the appellant alleging that they have contravened the provisions of Rule 173QG(4) read with Rules 53 and 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in as much as, they failed to maintain the statutory records for production of goods i.e. Redrawn Brass Tube (pipes) weighing 2070 kgs. valued at Rs. 2,27,7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d against the redemption fine and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-, however, the order-in-appeal dated 23-4-96 had set aside the duty while confirming the redemption fine and penalty. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that there was no mens rea on the part of the appellant for removal of the goods without payment of excise duty. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s involved for non-accountal of the goods in RG-1 register which at best attract a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 226. Learned Member (Judicial) has rightly held having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that a penalty of Rs. 2000/- for non-accountal in RG-1 register would suffice to meet the ends of justice in the case. I would thus concur with the view taken by the learned Mem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingle Member. Further reliance is placed in the case of C.C.E., Vapi v. Bhavani Smelters Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 414 (Tri-Mumbai) and in the case of C.C.E., Vapi v. Dan Detergents Ltd. - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 333 (Tri-Mumbai). All the above referred decisions were rendered by Single Member. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions cannot outweigh the decision of the Division Bench whi....