9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1091 - AT - Central ExciseConfirmation of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - In this case the charge against the appellant is that the goods were lying in their factory in finished condition without entry in RG-1 register. Therefore, plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant is contrary to the facts of the case. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not warrant any interference, the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
Issues:
Confirmation of redemption fine and penalty for unaccounted goods found during search. Analysis: The appellant appealed against the confirmation of a redemption fine and penalty of Rs. 2.75 lakh each. The case involved a search at the factory premises where goods worth Rs. 19,23,810 were found in excess compared to recorded stock. The production in charge and excise clerk failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the unaccounted finished goods, leading to their seizure. Additionally, some finished goods were found at the back of the factory, explained as rejected items for replacement, yet unaccounted for in statutory records. A show cause notice was issued for contraventions of Central Excise Rules, resulting in the imposition of redemption fine and penalty by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellant's appeal. The appellant argued that the unaccounted goods were received from a job worker and were to undergo inspection before entry in the RG-1 register. It was contended that there was no intention to evade recording these goods, hence the redemption fine and penalty should not apply. Conversely, the AR highlighted that the goods were in a ready-to-clear packed condition, undermining the appellant's argument. After hearing both parties, the judge found that the charge against the appellant was valid as the finished goods were present in the factory without proper entry in the RG-1 register. Consequently, the plea made by the appellant's counsel was deemed contrary to the case facts. Thus, the impugned order was upheld, dismissing the appellant's appeal.
|
