2015 (6) TMI 1072

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Noida, upholding penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the Adjudication Order. 2.  The brief facts of the case are that during course of inspection of the factory premises of appellant on 24.11.2011, the Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p; The Ld. Advocate Sh. Prabhat Kumar, appearing for the appellant submits that the allegation of the Department that no records as contemplated under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, has not been maintained by the appellant is factually incorrect inasmuch as the appellant maintained the daily production account and entered the manufacturing particulars therein. According to him, on the date o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner (Appeals) has categorically recorded that there is no clandestine clearance of the goods from the factory of the appellant. To substantiate his stand that penalty cannot be imposed in the facts of this case, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CCE vs Saurasthra Cement Ltd, [2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj)] and Supreme Industries Ltd. vs CESTAT, New Delh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the stock accounts have been maintained, which at the material time, was available with the Chartered Accountant of the appellant company, the allegation leveled against the assessee, justifying confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty are not legal and proper. I find support from the above referred judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that in absence of fraud, collusion, s....