1995 (9) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods due to failure to enter details in the RG 1 register.
2. Imposition of penalty for non-compliance with excise rules.
3. Appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of goods due to failure to enter details in the RG 1 register
The case involved the confiscation of 12 television sets found in the factory store-room of the assessee without proper entry in the RG 1 register. The Deputy Collector ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the confiscation, noting the lack of evidence of intention to evade duty. However, the penalty was upheld as the TV sets, being the day's production, should have been recorded in the register, which was not done.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty for non-compliance with excise rules
The department appealed, arguing that contravention of various excise rules justified confiscation under Rule 173Q, even without proving intention to evade duty. The department contended that failure to record raw material details and lack of explanation indicated intent to evade duty. The assessee challenged the penalty imposition, claiming the omission was not deliberate. However, the statement of the partner contradicted the claim that the goods were the day's production, and discrepancies in raw material entries were found, leading to the inference of potential removal of goods.

Issue 3: Appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh
Notices sent to the assessee were returned undelivered, and the case proceeded based on the material on record. The department's arguments were supported, and discrepancies in the partner's statement regarding production and raw material entries were highlighted. The appellate authority found the claim of non-deliberate omission unconvincing, leading to the conclusion that the goods were liable for confiscation due to the potential intent to evade duty.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the department's appeal, reinstating the Assistant Collector's order and dismissing the assessee's appeal. The decision was based on the inference of intent to evade duty from the discrepancies in record-keeping and the failure to comply with excise rules, justifying the confiscation and penalty imposed.