1997 (10) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of fluorescent lighting tubes for not being entered in the RG-1 register and stored in an unapproved place.
2. Confiscation of seized goods, recovery of duty, and imposition of penalty.
3. Dispute regarding the stage of manufacturing and quality control tests.
4. Consideration of redemption fine and penalty in proportion to the value of the goods.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the seizure of fluorescent lighting tubes from a factory premises for not being entered in the RG-1 register and being stored in an unapproved place. The officers of the Central Excise Department seized the goods marked with a specific date of manufacture. The appellant's representative admitted that the seized goods were not accounted for in the statutory records due to quality control test failure. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation, duty recovery, and penalty.

2. The Additional Collector adjudicated the case by confiscating the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty. The lower appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to the filing of an appeal by the assessees challenging the confiscation, duty recovery, and penalty.

3. The appellate tribunal analyzed the stage of manufacturing and quality control tests. The tribunal noted that the goods were fully manufactured as per the panchnama and adjudication order. The Additional Collector found that the seized goods were packed with strips, indicating completion of manufacturing. The tribunal compared the RG-1 entry requirements from the Basic Manual and the Trade Notice, concluding that the goods had reached the RG-1 stage. The tribunal affirmed that the confiscation was justified due to non-accountal of the goods.

4. Regarding the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, the tribunal considered the value of the goods to be around Rs. 7 lakhs. The tribunal found the redemption fine and penalty proportionate to the value of the goods, without any argument for reduction. As the amounts were deemed appropriate and not excessive, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the decision of confiscation, duty recovery, and penalty, emphasizing the completion of manufacturing and justification for the redemption fine and penalty based on the value of the goods.