1994 (2) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Penalty for non-entry in RG 1 Register from 12-3-1991 to 15-3-1991 under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Submissions:
The Appellants were penalized for not entering production and clearance in their RG 1 Register from 12-3-1991 to 15-3-1991. They explained that due to unforeseen circumstances, the entries for 12th, 13th, and 14th were not posted in the RG 1 Register, while the entry for 15th was to be made on 16-3-1991 but was hindered by the seizure of records by Central Excise Officers. The Appellants argued that there was no suppression of production and clearances as the basic documents were available through Gate Passes.

2. Previous Orders and Duty Evasion:
The current adjudication order was a result of a previous order being set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication. The Collector of Central Excise, Patna had earlier adjudged duty payable for evasion on wires and other goods. In the subsequent order by the Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, most charges were dropped except for non-maintenance of the RG 1 Register for the period in question. A penalty was imposed under Rule 173Q based on the non-entry of excisable goods in the Register.

3. Legal Interpretation and Penalty Modification:
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules. Rule 173Q pertains to more serious offenses and provides for stiffer penalties, while Rule 226 covers milder penalties for non-entry of particulars. The Tribunal noted that the non-entry in the present case did not have revenue implications or indicate an intent to evade duty. Therefore, the penalty was modified from Rule 173Q to Rule 226 based on the nature of the offense and lack of evidence supporting a more serious charge.

4. Decision and Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal and partially set aside the impugned order, modifying the penalty under Rule 226 instead of Rule 173Q. The Tribunal emphasized that the offense of non-entry in the statutory register was an irregularity but did not involve any serious revenue implications or intent to evade duty. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the offense did not warrant the stiffer penalty prescribed under Rule 173Q.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, legal interpretations, previous orders, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q for non-entry in the RG 1 Register.