1985 (11) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of goods for non-entry in R.G.1 register, Redemption fine, Penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment involved the confiscation of goods and imposition of a redemption fine and penalty on the appellants for not entering the goods in the R.G.1 register as per Central Excise Rules. The seized goods were writing and printing paper confiscated by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. The appellants argued that the goods did not reach the R.G.1 stage and cited a Trade Notice to support their claim. They explained that due to the factory's three-shift operation, the production of the previous day was accounted for on the next day, leading to a delay in entry. However, the Tribunal found that there was a contravention of Rule 53 read with Rule 173G as the goods were required to be entered in the R.G.1 register once they reached an identifiable form, irrespective of being saleable or undergoing finishing processes.

The Trade Notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise clearly outlined the principles for determining the R.G.1 stage for various commodities, including paper and paper board. The notice emphasized that goods, even in loose condition, should be entered in the R.G.1 register once they assume an identifiable form. The Tribunal noted that the seized goods were duly packed in unit packing suitable for marketing, indicating they had reached the R.G.1 stage and should have been entered in the register. The failure to do so constituted a violation of the Central Excise Rules.

The Tribunal acknowledged the practical difficulties faced by the factory in making entries on the same day due to the three-shift operation but highlighted the importance of timely and accurate entries in the R.G.1 register to prevent clandestine removal of goods. The judgment upheld the confiscation of the goods but reduced the redemption fine, considering the absence of evidence indicating an intention to remove the goods without duty payment. The penalty was set aside due to the lack of intent for clandestine removal, and the appeal was partly allowed with a reduced redemption fine.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the strict adherence to Central Excise Rules regarding the timely entry of goods in the R.G.1 register to prevent evasion of duty. The Trade Notice provided clear guidelines for determining the R.G.1 stage, emphasizing the importance of accurate record-keeping to maintain transparency in excisable goods' movement and prevent illicit activities.