1977 (8) TMI 162 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Contravention of rule 173-G(4) and rule 53 of Central Excise Rules, contravention of rule 173-G(6) of Central Excise Rules, confiscation of electric wires and cables, imposition of redemption fine, imposition of personal penalty.

The judgment in the case involved an appeal against the confiscation of electric wires and cables by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise. The main issue raised was the contravention of rule 173-G(4) and rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules, which require an assessee to maintain accounts of production, manufacture, storage, delivery, and disposal of goods. The appellant argued that the charges against them were not valid as certain major charges were dropped after considering their defense. They contended that the rules regarding confiscation were not applicable as the goods were duly accounted for in the R.G. 1, despite a delay in producing the accounts to the Central Excise Officers. The judgment analyzed the evidence and concluded that the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants regarding the confiscation of the seized goods, setting aside the order of confiscation of 223 coils of electric wires and cables.

Another issue addressed in the judgment was the contravention of rule 173-G(6) of the Central Excise Rules, which requires an assessee to produce accounts and returns for scrutiny by Central Excise Officers. The judgment found that the appellants failed to produce the necessary accounts to the officers during the visit, which constituted a violation of the rule. As a result, the personal penalty imposed on the appellant for contravention of this rule was upheld, despite setting aside the confiscation order for the seized goods.

The judgment also discussed the circumstances surrounding the storage of the seized goods in the finishing room, noting that the presence of finished goods in the finishing room was not abnormal. The delay in producing the R.G. 1 register and the absence of evidence showing tampering with the almirah where the register was kept were considered in evaluating the case against the appellants. Ultimately, the judgment concluded that the evidence did not conclusively prove the non-entry of the seized goods in the records, leading to the benefit of doubt being given to the appellants regarding the confiscation of the goods.

In summary, the judgment accepted the appeal to the extent that the confiscation of the seized goods was set aside due to lack of conclusive evidence, but upheld the personal penalty imposed on the appellant for contravention of rule 173-G(6) of the Central Excise Rules. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal provisions, ultimately granting partial relief to the appellants while maintaining the penalty for the established violation.