2013 (8) TMI 383 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods under Rules 25 of the CER, 2002 Held that - Under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the goods are liable to be confiscated subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, to confiscate the goods under Rule 25, ingredient of Section 11AC of the Act are required i.e. fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement and suppression of fact or contravention of Rule/Act with an intent to evade payment of duty - Inputs procured by the appellants have been duly entered in Form-4 Register - These goods are not entered in RG-I Register, but it cannot be said that by merely not entering in RG-I Register, there was any intention to evade duty by the appellants - The goods are not liable for confiscation in the facts and circumstances of the case. As the goods are not liable for confiscation, therefore, redemption fine is not imposable, but as the appellants are not maintaining the statutory record properly, therefore, they should be penalized for not maintaining the record properly. To penalize for non-maintaining of proper record, Rule 27 is the proper Rule to impose penalty on the appellants Penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed on the appellants.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order confirming confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The case involved a challenge to an order confirming the confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing various products, were availing exemption under Notification 8/2003-C.E. for the period 2006 and 2007. The issue arose when finished goods were found not recorded in the RG-I Register during a visit to the factory premises based on intelligence. This led to a show-cause notice proposing confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to verify if the goods were properly entered in the Form-4 Register. The appellants argued that due to availing SSI exemption, the goods did not need to be entered in the RG-I Register and were duly recorded in the Form-4 Register. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication, resulting in the confirmation of confiscation and penalties. The appellants challenged this decision, leading to the current appeal.

The appellant contended that being an SSI Unit, they were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. and maintained proper records in the Form-4 Register for non-duty paid inputs used in manufacturing finished goods. They argued that the inadvertent omission of these goods in the RG-I Register did not indicate any intention to evade duty. The appellant cited relevant case law to support their position and requested the order to be set aside. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the Form-4 Register was not sufficient for recording finished goods, emphasizing the necessity of the RG-I Register for maintaining proper records. They asserted that the failure to enter goods in the appropriate register indicated an intent to clear goods clandestinely, justifying the confiscation and penalties imposed.

After hearing both sides, the judge analyzed the situation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was noted that the goods were duly recorded in the Form-4 Register, indicating no fraudulent intent by the appellants. The absence of entries in the RG-I Register did not establish mala fide intentions. While a penalty was imposed for not maintaining proper records, the judge ruled that the goods were not liable for confiscation. Consequently, no redemption fine was imposed, and a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was levied for record-keeping deficiencies. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the impugned order with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of proper record-keeping, the distinction between registers for duty exemptions, and the absence of fraudulent intent in the case. The decision balanced the requirements of maintaining statutory records with the absence of evidence supporting clandestine clearance, ultimately resulting in the setting aside of the confiscation order and imposition of a nominal penalty for record-keeping lapses.