1998 (7) TMI 299 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for default.
2. Confiscation of veneers, imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Non-accountal of veneers manufactured by the party.
4. Violation of Rule 53 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 leading to confiscation order.

Issue 1: Restoration of appeal dismissed for default
The restoration application sought the restoration of an appeal dismissed for default. The Counsel explained the reasons for absence, which were deemed sufficient for recalling the order. Consequently, the order of dismissal was recalled, and the appeal was taken up for hearing.

Issue 2: Confiscation of veneers, imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q
In the impugned order, the Commissioner ordered the confiscation of veneers and imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner also ordered the appropriation of the security amount and imposed a penalty on the party.

Issue 3: Non-accountal of veneers manufactured by the party
The primary issue for determination was the non-accountal of veneers manufactured by the party. The party contended that accounting for the goods was impracticable due to their nature and that only sold veneers were being accounted for. However, the Commissioner negatived their pleas, stating that the goods were well defined and could have been accounted for in the statutory records. The Commissioner observed that the party had violated Rule 53 by not maintaining daily stock accounts, leading to the confiscation order.

Issue 4: Violation of Rule 53 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 leading to confiscation order
The Commissioner noted that the party, working under the self-removal procedure, had violated Rule 53 by not maintaining daily stock accounts. This violation, along with the non-accountal of goods, led to the confiscation order under Rule 173Q. However, considering extenuating circumstances, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced to Rs. 10,000 each due to continuous correspondence with the Board and no attempt at clandestine clearance of goods.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the restoration of the appeal, the confiscation of veneers, the non-accountal of goods by the party, and the violation of Rule 53 leading to the confiscation order. Extenuating circumstances led to a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty, providing some relief to the party.