2009 (6) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellant. Shri Manish Mohan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  After examining the records, I find that there is a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Garg Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (assessee) under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that there is a separate penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on a Director of the Company under Rule 26. There are also penalties of Rs. 50,000/- each on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the company before the lower appellate authority is lying with the department. It is also submitted that, during the material period there was no legal requirement to maintain any statutory record of production of excisable goods. According to counsel, it was enough for the manufacturer to maintain private records. It is claimed that such record was being maintained in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee. Any excisable goods not accounted for by the manufacturer can be confiscated in terms of Rule 25(1)(b). No mens rea is required. Counsel has pointed out that clause (d) of Rule 25(1) was invoked by the lower authorities without finding mens rea against the assessee. In this context, he has also claimed support from Commissioner of Central Excise v. Kitply Industries Ltd. 2003 (162) E.L.T. 4....