2008 (8) TMI 369 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Upholding Commissioner (Appeal's) order on confiscation of seized goods and imposition of redemption fine
2. Upholding Commissioner (Appeal's) order on reducing penalty for non-accountal of goods in RG-1 Register
3. Upholding Commissioner (Appeal's) order on penalty imposition under Rule 173Q(1) for non-entry in RG-1 Register

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant-revenue challenged the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal) regarding the confiscation of seized goods and imposition of a redemption fine. The appellant argued that the goods were fully finished but not entered in the RG-1 Register, justifying the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the confiscation but upheld the penalty for non-entries. The Tribunal also confirmed these findings. The High Court noted that the appellate authorities found that the goods were not entered in the RG-23A Register and the respondent contested the fully manufactured condition of the goods. The High Court concluded that there was no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order, and since no substantial question of law was raised, the appeal was dismissed.

Issue 2:
The second issue involved the reduction of the penalty imposed on the respondent for non-accountal of goods in the RG-1 Register. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the penalty to Rs. 2000, the maximum prescribed for non-entry under Rule 226, from the original amount. The High Court found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly modified the penalty considering the circumstances of the case, where there was no evidence of an intention to evade duty. The High Court upheld the reduction in penalty and found no reason to invoke Section 11AC for the offense detected.

Issue 3:
The final issue pertained to the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q(1) for non-entry in the RG-1 Register. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the confiscation but upheld the penalty for non-entries, reducing it to Rs. 2000. The High Court agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that while penalties could be imposed for non-entries, the maximum prescribed penalty was appropriate in this case. The High Court concurred with the findings that there was no evidence of an intent to evade duty, leading to the reduction in penalties. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision on penalty imposition under Rule 173Q(1).

In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the decisions of the appellate authorities regarding the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties imposed, finding no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order. The Court dismissed the appeal as no substantial question of law was raised for consideration.