1999 (8) TMI 690 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of goods under seizure
- Classification of goods
- Entry in R.G. 1 register
- Non-filing of classification list
- Liability for confiscation and penalty

Confiscation of Goods Under Seizure:
The appeal was filed against an order confiscating goods under seizure by the Additional Collector. The goods included a milk chiller, S.S. Pipes, S.S. Conveyor, S.S. Top Table, parts of inline filters, decoration plant, and Agitator with motor. The appellant argued that the milk chiller was the same as the heat exchanger, which was entered in the R.G. 1 register, thus not liable for confiscation. The Tribunal found that the milk chiller was duly entered in the register and not cleared, so it was not liable for confiscation. Regarding the other goods, the Tribunal considered them as scrap material and reduced the penalty and redemption fine due to their low value.

Classification of Goods:
The department distinguished between the milk chiller and heat exchanger, stating that the latter was not entered in the R.G. 1 register, making it liable for confiscation. The appellant argued that the goods were the same and already registered. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the goods were properly entered in the register, and the burden of proof was on the department to show clearance, which they failed to do.

Entry in R.G. 1 Register and Non-filing of Classification List:
The appellant contended that the S.S. Pipes, S.S. Conveyor, and other items were not entered in the R.G. 1 register but were only scrap material. The Tribunal acknowledged the violation of Central Excise Rules due to non-entry in the register but considered the low value of the goods in determining the penalty and redemption fine.

Liability for Confiscation and Penalty:
The department argued that the goods not entered in the R.G. 1 register were liable for confiscation as per Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the goods were duly accounted for in the register and available in the factory premises, reducing the redemption fine and penalty significantly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the milk chiller, despite being described differently by the department, was not liable for confiscation as it was properly entered in the register. The other goods, although not registered, were considered scrap material, leading to a reduction in the penalty and redemption fine. The appeal was disposed of with adjusted fines for the appellant.