2010 (10) TMI 986

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s in their RG1 register. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation and penalty. Accordingly, the lower authorities confiscated the impugned goods and allowed to redeem on a fine of ₹ 3,00,000/- and a penalty of ₹ 2,07,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that in this case it is an admitted fact that at the time of visit of officers, the goods were not entered in the RG1 register and it was explained to the department that the person dealing with the excise records was on leave and the appellant himself was out of town hence, the goods cannot be entered in the statutory records. There is n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hand the learned DR relied on the decision of C.C.E., Vapi v. Modison Ltd. - 2006 (203) E.L.T. 521 (Tri.-LB) wherein the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has held that for confiscation and penalty under Rule 25 sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) mens rea is not required and on relying on the said decision in the case of Wearwell Tyre & Tube Ind. (P) Ltd. - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 265 (Tri.-Del.) has held the same view. Hence, the impugned order is sustainable. 5. Heard both sides. 6. I have gone through the facts of the case and in this case it is an admitted fact that at the time of visit the finished goods were not entered in the RG1 register which have been explained by the appellant before the authorities. It is also true that in show cau....