2003 (9) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether finished goods found in excess are liable for confiscation and penalty.

Analysis:
The appellants filed appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner, where the issue was whether finished goods found in excess were liable for confiscation and penalty. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The appellants relied on previous decisions to support their case. They cited the case of Pepsi Foods, where the Tribunal set aside the confiscation order as the goods were entered in the private record, not the statutory record. However, in the present case, the excess goods were not even entered in the statutory record, making the previous decision inapplicable.

The appellants also referred to the case of Continental Chemicals, where unaccounted goods were not liable for confiscation due to being produced on the same day. Additionally, they cited the case of Southern Steel Ltd., where non-excisable goods were not confiscated. On the other hand, the Revenue relied on the Kirloskar Brothers case, where Rule 173Q could be invoked even without mens rea. The Nizam Sugar Factory case upheld confiscation and penalty for not entering goods in the statutory record.

The Tribunal considered the principles of judicial discipline and precedent set by High Court decisions. They followed the Kirloskar Brothers case and the Nizam Sugar Factory case, upholding the confiscation and penalty. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals based on the above analysis, finding no infirmity in the impugned order.