1999 (9) TMI 266 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of excess stock of wool tops by Central Excise Preventive Staff.
- Appeal against order of Assistant Commissioner for confiscation and penalty.
- Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) upheld.
- Challenge to the validity of the impugned order by appellants.
- Interpretation of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.
- Failure to account for excess goods in factory premises.
- Application of mens rea in ordering confiscation of goods.
- Comparison with relevant legal precedents.

Confiscation of Excess Stock:
The case involved the confiscation of 1648 kgs. of wool tops by the Central Excise Preventive Staff from the appellants' premises due to the excess stock not matching the recorded stock in the RG 1 Register. The appellants contested the show cause notice, claiming the excess stock accumulated over time due to moisture gain and not mala fide intent to evade duty.

Appeal Against Order:
The Assistant Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods with an option for redemption on payment and imposed a penalty. The appellants appealed to the Commissioner, who upheld the order, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

Validity of Impugned Order:
The appellants challenged the Commissioner's order, arguing against the penalty and seizure of goods since there was no removal of goods from the factory premises. The Counsel cited legal precedents to support their contention, but the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing Rule 173Q's provisions for confiscation and penalties.

Interpretation of Rule 173Q:
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 173Q, stating that failure to account for excisable goods with intent to evade duty warrants confiscation and penalties. The Counsel's explanation for the excess stock was deemed insufficient, as the stock's presence in the finished room indicated an intention to market it without duty payment.

Mens Rea and Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal clarified that mens rea was not necessary under Rule 173Q, citing cases where confiscation was upheld for unaccounted excess stock. Legal precedents highlighted the Tribunal's consistent stance on confiscation and penalties for unexplained excess goods in factory premises, emphasizing the lack of necessity for mens rea in such cases.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's order as valid and in accordance with the law. The appellants' failure to account for excess goods in the factory premises justified the confiscation and penalties imposed, aligning with Rule 173Q's provisions and established legal precedents. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and legal framework, concluding that the appeal lacked merit for interference.