TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factory was visited by Central Excise officers on 18.6.08, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, about 4131 boxes of Ceramic Glazed Tiles were found in excess than the recorded balance in RG-1 register. The same were put under seizure by the officers. 3. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the said goods and for imposition of penalties by way of issuance of Show Cause Notice dt.24.9.08. The said Show Cause Notice culminated into an order passed by original adjudicating authority, confiscating the goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only). In addition, penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not entered in the Daily Stock Register by mistake. I t is not the case of the Department that the said excess found stock was removed by the appellant without payment of duty. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the confiscation of the seized goods is not proper in this case. Therefore, I wave the condition to pre-deposit of redemption fine and penalties imposed by the Lower Authority and take up to decide the main appeal. 6. On perusal of the case records, it is noticed that there is no evidence of removal or attempt of removal of the finished goods without payment of duty. It is a mere non-accountal of the finished goods produced in the Daily Stock Register. Further, it is noticed that the Lower Authority has not evidently ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecord. There is no statement or any evidence to show that the said goods were meant for clandestine removal. Ld.JDR has relied upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE Vapi Vs. Modison Ltd., holding that no mens rea is required for confiscation and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q and penalties can be imposed for non-maintenance of record. However, I find that in the present case, confiscation or penalty is not called-for for non-maintenance of record inasmuch as excess production was reported to be of day of visit of the officers and was yet to be entered. It is not the case where the records were not being maintained by the assessee for quite long period. It is not necessary for a manufacturer to enter the production immedia....