9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The aforesaid goods were seized by the Central Excise Officers on 1-11-1983 when they visited the factory on that day, as they found that the abovementioned goods were not entered in the R.G. 1 register. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have filed the present appeal which is before me. 2. I have heard Shri S.S. Mehra, learned consultant for the appellants and Shri Shishir Kumar, learned S.D.R. for the respondent. 3. Shri Mehra, has argued that the seized goods, namely, 310 bundles and 1062 packets paper, weighing 23649.5 Kg in all did not reach the stage of R.G.1 and as such the same were not entered in the R.G.1 Register. He has also submitted that in the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation or penalty should have been ordered. In support of his submission, he has cited this Tribunal s Order No. 253/85-C, dated 20-3-1985 in appeal No. ED (SB)(T) 939/81-C (M/s. Kellner Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Kanpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur) and also the order passed in the case of Merck Spares, Delhi v. Collector of Central Excise Customs, New Delhi, in appeal No. CD (DEL)(T) 7/79-NRB, dated 31-3-1983 reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1261. 6. Learned S.D.R. has argued that the impact of Trade Notice No. 82/83 is very clear and it has very clearly indicated the principle to be followed in determining the R.G.1 stage. According to paragraph 7 of this trade notice, both packed goods as well as loose goods are required to be entered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R.G. 1 point in respect of various commodities specified in para 18 of the Trade Notice. For proper appreciation of the Trade Notice, it is desirable to re-produce paragraphs 7, 9, l4 15 of the Trade Notice, which are as follows :- 7. This account combines the record R.G. 1 and E.B. 4- prescribed under Rules. Where assessees, on their own, desire to maintain R.G. 1 and E.B. 4 separately, they may do so and in such cases maintenance of the account under Self Removal Procedure as in Annexure A will not be necessary. In case a combined R.G. 1 and E.B. 4 account is maintained, the closing balance of the excisable goods in the record needs to be split up for accountal of goods in the finishing room and in the bonded store room. The loose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re awaiting certain quality control tests for affixing of lables etc. is not tenable and will not hold ground. It is emphasised that as soon as goods have assumed identifiable form and satisfies the description as mentioned in the Central Excise Tariff, their accountal in R.G. 1 register should not be postponed on any ground. These paragraphs clearly lay down the principle to be followed in determining the R.G. 1 stage in respect of various commodities. As stated therein, it is sufficient for the purpose of R.G. 1 if the process of manufacture has resulted in bringing into existence an article as one mentioned in the Central Excise Tariff even if the goods may not be saleable in that form and even if the goods may be awaiting certain min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been duly entered in the R.G. 1 register. There has, therefore, been a contravention of Rule 53 read with Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, as held by the adjudicating officer. 10. In the written memorandum of appeal, the appellants have stated that the seized goods were the production of 31-10-1983 and according to their practice the production of that day was to be accounted for in the R.G. 1 register on 1-11-1983 and since the register was taken by the concerned clerk at 7.30 a.m. to the Central Excise Office, postings in the register could not be started in the morning of 1-11-1983. They have also stated that their factory works in three shifts, and therefore, the production of 31-10-1983 could be accounted for in the R.G. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in the show cause notice or in the order-in-original that the non-accountal of the seized goods in the Central Excise records was with the intention to clandestinely remove the goods from the factory without payment of duty. In view of this, the end of justice could be met by imposing a smaller amount of redemption fine. For the same reason, I also hold that no penalty should be imposed for the aforesaid lapses. In the circumstances, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I confirm the order of confiscation of the impugned goods, but reduce the amount of redemption fine from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- only. I also set aside the penalty. 12. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
