1999 (5) TMI 597 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of crates and bottles of aerated waters.
2. Confiscation of cash seized.
3. Levy of Central Excise duty on clandestinely removed aerated waters.
4. Imposition of penalty under various Central Excise Rules.
5. Confiscation of land, building, plant, and machinery.

Summary:

1. Confiscation of crates and bottles of aerated waters:
The adjudicating authority found that the non-entry in the RGI register after 25-9-1993 was a technical violation and did not warrant confiscation of the 385 crates seized from the factory on 28-9-1993. The 1400 crates seized on 30-9-1993 were accounted for in the RGI register, and since the goods had not left the factory, they were not intended for clandestine removal. The 3387 crates seized on 30-9-1993 were also not liable to confiscation.

2. Confiscation of cash seized:
The cash amounting to Rs. 3,46,493/- seized on 28-9-1993 was found to be accounted for in the books of the assessees, as certified by M/s. Kamal & Co., Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the cash could not be taken as representing sales proceeds of non-duty paid aerated waters and was not liable to confiscation.

3. Levy of Central Excise duty on clandestinely removed aerated waters:
The demand of Rs. 7,33,36,132/- was based on the difference between sales figures recorded in the RGI register and those reflected in the computer printouts of M/s. PEL. The adjudicating authority found that the figures in the computerised sheets were not reliable due to lack of corroborative evidence, inconsistencies in statements, and the absence of higher electricity consumption or extra sales proceeds. Thus, the demand of Rs. 4,72,51,048/- was dropped.

4. Imposition of penalty under various Central Excise Rules:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 65 lakhs on the assessees for not accounting for certain quantities of NABB in their records. However, the adjudicating authority accepted the explanation for the drainage of some units of NABB and found that the loss of concentrates was real. The assessees' appeal against the confirmation of part of the duty demand and the imposition of penalty was allowed, and the duty demand and penalty were set aside.

5. Confiscation of land, building, plant, and machinery:
The show cause notice also proposed confiscation of land, building, plant, and machinery under Rule 173Q(2), but the judgment does not provide specific details on this issue, implying that it was not upheld.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was rejected, and the appeal of the assessees was allowed, setting aside the duty demand and penalty.