1997 (10) TMI 235 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Non-accountal of excisable goods
- Confiscation and penalty
- Benefit of doubt to the respondent
- Failure to produce RG 1 register

Analysis:
The case involved the manufacturing of copper strips/flats/bars falling under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Central Excise Officers initiated proceedings against the appellant for non-accountal of excisable goods, leading to a show cause notice dated 30-9-1992. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Surat, confiscated 5,136 kgs of copper products valued at Rs. 5,90,640/- and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- along with a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeal, extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent and setting aside the impugned order.

The appellant's representative argued that there was a total non-accountal of excisable products and the RG 1 register, where production details should be entered, was not produced during the officers' visit. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel acknowledged the existence of a new RG 1 register from 1-4-1992 but highlighted that it was not presented to the officers during their visit, leading to the confiscation and penalty.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly considered the evidence and confirmed the presence of the new RG 1 register from 1-4-1992, even though it was not shown to the officers during their visit on 4-4-1992. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had also observed the existence of the new register and penalized the appellant solely for the failure to produce it during the visit. The respondent's explanation that the partner present during the visit was unaware of the new register's existence due to the absence of the Central Excise clerk maintaining it was deemed plausible. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the respondent, emphasizing that the appellant's penalty was justified only for the failure to produce the new register during the visit. Thus, the appeal was rejected.