1987 (6) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include confiscation of excess biscuits, penalty imposition, redemption fine, failure to account for goods in the R.G.1 Register, and contravention of Central Excise Rules.

Confiscation of Excess Biscuits:
The Additional Collector of Central Excise confiscated biscuits found in excess over the recorded balance in the R.G.1 Register. The appellants argued that entries could not be made due to workload, but the Collector held that the goods were not accounted for properly, leading to confiscation.

Penalty Imposition:
A penalty was imposed on the appellants for failure to make necessary entries in the R.G.1 Register. The Collector noted that the party failed to make required entries and removal of goods without proper documentation, justifying the penalty.

Redemption Fine and Penalty Justification:
The imposition of a redemption fine and penalty was contested by the appellants, arguing lack of mala fide intent. However, the respondent argued that the fine and penalty were justified due to the failure to account for goods in the register.

Failure to Account for Goods:
The appellants were charged with not accounting for a total quantity of biscuits in the R.G.1 Register, leading to confiscation and penalty. The argument centered around the proper recording of goods and the statutory duty to maintain accurate records.

Contravention of Central Excise Rules:
The case revolved around the contravention of Central Excise Rules, specifically regarding the failure to maintain the R.G.1 Register accurately. The Collector upheld the confiscation of goods not properly recorded, citing Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.

Modification of the Order:
After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the impugned order was modified to reduce the redemption fine and penalty from Rs. 10,000.00 to Rs. 5,000.00 each, based on the value of the unaccounted goods not liable for confiscation. The confiscation of certain goods was set aside, while others were upheld based on the violations of the Central Excise Rules.