Full Judgment
2. Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the contravention for which these find and penalty was adjudged, failure to enter the daily production in RG1 register of tyres, tubes, flaps for 3 days in May 1995; the same contravention for a period of 21 days in the same month for scrap, and the removal for captive consumption without filing requisite documents, of the two machines which the Commissioner says the appellant manufactured. He, however, says that these contraventions are purely technical. There was not the slightest attempt to evade any duty. Duty had been paid on the tyres, tubes, flaps and scraps on their removal during the period in question. Details of the manufacture of the tyres in the appellant factory were in the private records. The two machines were exempted from payment of duty and therefore failure to file the necessary documents became irrelevant. He cites case laws in support of his contention that a lenient view should be taken.
3. The departmental representative says that the Commissioner has already taken a sufficiently lenient view in the light of the repeated contravention of the appellants for which no valid explanation is forthcoming.
4. There has been contravention of Rule 226 by the non-entry in the records of the excisable goods manufactured by the appellant. In that situation, in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal in Indian Steel & Wire Product Ltd. v. CCE 1995 (78) ELT 298, the provisions of Rule 226 can be applied even if not invoked in the notice. Similarly, penalty for not filing the requisite documents for the machines was also imposed. However, we accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that these contraventions were procedural although they continued for three weeks in the case of scrap. Having regard to these facts we reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant to Rs. 50,000/- and redemption fine to Rs. 7.5 lakhs.