2004 (9) TMI 520 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty and confiscation of goods based on non-declaration as final products in classification declaration.

Analysis:
The appeal contested the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and confiscation of goods, which were released on a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The central excise officers seized 20 wooden boxes containing RS and RPS (Electrical resistors) from the factory, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation and penalty. The Assistant Commissioner initially imposed a fine and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- each, later reduced to Rs. 10,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals). The crux of the challenge lay in the declaration of the goods as final products, with the appellants arguing that the seized items were semi-finished goods intended for further processing in the manufacture of Field Divertor Resistors (RS & RPS) and electrical resistors. Reference was made to the classification declaration, emphasizing that the goods were not fully finished and did not require entry in the RG-1 register at that stage.

The advocate for the appellants highlighted previous tribunal decisions to support the argument that the goods did not need to be entered in the RG-1 register until a specific stage of completion had been reached. The non-accountal of the goods was justified on the grounds of pending inspection by Chitranjan Lokomotive Works, delaying their entry in the register. Furthermore, the advocate cited cases where penalty imposition was deemed unnecessary if duty had been paid before the show cause notice issuance. The timing of the show cause notice, post-duty payment, was emphasized to challenge the penalty imposition.

On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the goods were not accounted for in the RG-1 register, indicating a potential intent to evade duty. The argument focused on the absence of mens rea requirement for penalty imposition, citing relevant legal precedents to support the stance. However, the judgment scrutinized whether the goods had reached the RG-1 stage and were declared as finished products in the classification declaration. It was observed that the exclusion clause in the declaration and the post-inspection status of the goods indicated that they were not yet fully finished. The goods were intended for a specific buyer, Chitranjan Lokomotive Works, further supporting the claim that they were not unaccounted for as finished goods.

Ultimately, the tribunal found merit in the appellant's appeal, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The decision was based on the determination that the goods had not reached the RG-1 stage and were not considered fully finished, especially given the pending inspection and subsequent operations required post-provisional release. The specific nature of the goods and their intended buyer contributed to the conclusion that the goods were not unaccounted for as finished products, leading to the allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the previous order.