1998 (10) TMI 237 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess goods and imposition of fine and penalty.
2. Whether the goods had reached the stage for entry in the R.G. 1 register.
3. Compliance with Rule 53 regarding entry in the R.G. 1 register.
4. Relevance of citations provided by the appellant.
5. Extent of leniency shown by the Commissioner.

Confiscation of Excess Goods and Imposition of Fine and Penalty:
The officers found 1390.345 kgs. of enamelled copper wire not recorded in the R.G. I register during a visit to the factory. The Assistant Commissioner confiscated the goods and imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000/- along with a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision but reduced the fine to Rs. 5,000/- and the penalty to Rs. 3,000/-. The appeal was made against this order.

Goods' Stage for Entry in the R.G. 1 Register:
The central issue was whether the goods had reached the stage necessitating entry in the R.G. 1 register. The appellant argued that the goods were not fully manufactured as they had not undergone quality control inspection, packing, and weighment. The process flow chart indicated that the R.G. 1 stage came after these steps, questioning the validity of the confiscation order.

Compliance with Rule 53 - Entry in R.G. 1 Register:
The Tribunal referred to the prescribed R.G. 1 point for electric wires and cables, emphasizing the necessity of entry even if the goods were not marketable. While the assessees seemed to contravene Rule 53, doubts arose regarding the current validity of departmental instructions and the timing of the process chart submission. The violation was deemed technical, not warranting severe action.

Relevance of Citations Provided by the Appellant:
The appellant relied on various Tribunal judgments, including one involving Autolite (India) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur. However, the Tribunal noted that the cited case law was no longer relevant due to a subsequent judgment that discredited the earlier reliance on Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision. Consequently, the citations were deemed irrelevant to the case.

Extent of Leniency Shown by the Commissioner:
The Commissioner had shown leniency in reducing the fine and penalty, but the Tribunal found the leniency insufficient. The penalty imposed under Rule 173Q was remitted, while the order regarding the fine was retained. With this modification, the impugned order was upheld.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision regarding the confiscation of excess goods and imposition of a fine, while questioning the compliance with Rule 53 for entry in the R.G. 1 register. The relevance of citations provided by the appellant was dismissed, and the extent of leniency shown by the Commissioner was deemed insufficient. The Tribunal modified the penalty imposed but retained the order related to the fine, ultimately upholding the impugned decision with the specified adjustments.