1992 (4) TMI 129 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are liable to be penalized under Rule-173Q for not entering Road Rollers in the RG-I register?
2. Whether the duty demanded on one Road Roller and one Tea Packer machine is lawful?
3. Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q is justified?

Analysis:

1. The appellants argued that painting the goods was the final stage of manufacture, after which the Road Rollers were entered in the RG-I register. The Adjudicating Authority failed to consider this argument. As per the Central Excise Rules, goods must be entered in the register after manufacture. Since painting was considered the final stage by the appellants, the benefit of doubt was given to them. Thus, they cannot be penalized under Rule 173Q.

2. Regarding the missing Road Roller and Tea Packer machine, discrepancies arose in the explanations provided by the appellants. The Production Manager initially claimed the dismantling was for an experiment, but in the reply to the show cause notice, a different reason was given. The inconsistencies in their statements led to the demand of duty on the Road Roller being upheld. However, the Tea Packer machine's duty demand was set aside due to the production of valid Gate Passes.

3. The appellants were found liable for removing a Road Roller without paying Central Excise Duty, leading to a penalty under Rule 173Q. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 due to the circumstances. The duty demand on the Road Roller was confirmed at Rs. 30,555.00. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed, with the penalty reduced but duty demand upheld.