2005 (9) TMI 533 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Daman.
2. Seizure of excess stock of aluminum wire without proper entry in RG-1 Register.
3. Allegation of intention to remove excisable goods without payment of duty.
4. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of redemption fine.
5. Failure to enter finished goods in RG-1 Register and penalty imposition.
6. Lack of evidence to prove intention to evade payment of duty.
7. Applicability of penalty for non-accountal in RG-1 Register without mens rea.
8. Dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue based on settled legal position.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Daman, regarding the seizure of excess stock of aluminum wire by Central Excise Officers from a manufacturing unit. The seized goods were found to be fully finished and ready for the market, with allegations of non-payment of Central Excise duty and improper entry in the RG-1 Register.

2. The Revenue contended that the unrecorded stock was equal to 15 days production and part of it was removed without proper documentation, indicating an intention to evade duty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that there was no evidence to suggest clandestine removal of goods. The Commissioner set aside the confiscation of seized goods and the redemption fine imposed by the lower authority.

3. Despite the failure to enter finished goods in the RG-1 Register, the Commissioner found no proof of intent to evade duty. The penalty amount was reduced significantly from Rs. 59,469 to Rs. 2,000 under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The lack of independent evidence to support the allegation of evasion led to the dismissal of the penalty imposed under Rule 290A.

4. The respondent's counsel cited precedents to support the view that non-accountal without mens rea is a minor offense warranting a penalty of Rs. 2,000 along with confiscation of goods. The Commissioner concurred with this view, emphasizing that the penalty amount was sufficient in the present case to meet the ends of justice.

5. Relying on settled legal principles, the judgment dismissed the Revenue's appeal, highlighting the lack of merit in challenging the Commissioner's decision. The case was resolved based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and established case law, ultimately upholding the reduction of penalties and setting aside the confiscation of seized goods.