2005 (5) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and penalty reduction by Commissioner (Appeals) challenged by Revenue in present appeal.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute where the Revenue has appealed against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confiscation of goods and the reduction of penalties. The respondents, engaged in the manufacture of organic chemicals, had excess quantity of final products not entered in the RG-1 register during a visit by Central Excise Officers. The Assistant Commissioner had initially confiscated the goods with a fine for redemption and imposed personal penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation and reduced the penalties after considering various factors.

The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that a significant portion of the total production was exported, and the purity of materials needed testing as per buyer specifications, leading to non-accounting of excess quantity in the RG1 register. The absence of allegations for clandestine removal and the seizure of goods within the factory premises were crucial factors in setting aside the fine imposed for confiscation. While acknowledging the offense for non-accounting of finished products and a breach of rules, the Commissioner (Appeals) took a lenient view and reduced the penalties imposed on the responsible individuals of the unit.

The Revenue's appeal memo did not present any evidence indicating the goods were intended for clandestine removal or that the goods would have been cleared without duty payment if not detected. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings and observations, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors, including the specific circumstances of the case, in determining the appropriateness of confiscation and penalties in excise matters.