2000 (7) TMI 341 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancies in stock verification of glass products.
2. Confiscation of excess quantity of glass panel and duty imposition.
3. Appeal against the order of confiscation and duty imposition.
4. Consideration of relief for fragile nature of goods and non-maintenance of records.
5. Applicability of remission of duty under Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
1. The case involved discrepancies in stock verification of glass products by Central Excise officers at the factory premises of M/s. Gurind India (P) Ltd. The discrepancies included excess quantity of glass panel and shortage of glass panels involving Central Excise duty.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise ordered the confiscation of the excess quantity of glass panel and imposed a fine on the party. Additionally, duty was confirmed on the assorted glass found short, and a penalty was imposed on the party.

3. The party appealed against the order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the penalty amount but set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, leading to the Revenue appealing against this decision.

4. The main contention in the appeal was regarding the non-accountal of finished goods in the statutory records, emphasizing the importance of maintaining records like the RG 1 Register. The Commissioner (Appeals) had granted relief to the party based on the fragile nature of the goods and the occurrence of breakage and damage, but the Revenue argued that remission of duty should have been sought under relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules.

5. The Commissioner's order highlighted the fragile nature of the goods, the technical nature of the offense related to excess goods, and the non-maintenance of the RG1 register. The Commissioner noted that the excess goods were within the factory premises and were not intended for removal without following proper procedures. The shortage of goods was attributed to damaged items, and the Revenue itself acknowledged that duty on damaged goods could be remitted under relevant rules.

6. The judgment rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the best course of action would have been to suggest seeking remission of duty for damaged goods instead of rushing to confirm duty. The penalty for non-maintenance of records was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed based on the findings and considerations made by the Commissioner in the original order.