9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. 2 herein. Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order insofar as confiscation and imposition of redemption fine on respondent No. I were set aside and penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. Penalty on respondent No. 2 also set aside. Hence, Revenue filed these appeals. Held that- , Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed that when the inputs contained in final products have been duly accounted for, there is no question of removal of excess goods clandestinely. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. - E/917-918/2006-SM(BR) - 1217-1218/2009-SM(BR) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s confiscation of goods which was not accounted by the manufacturer. He submits that no mens rea is essential to confiscate the unaccounted goods under the said rule. He relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (a) PNP Castings (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Lucknow - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 250 (Tri -Del.); (b) CCE, Indore v. Magnum Steels Ltd. -2006 (197) E.L.T. 572 (Tri. - Del); (c) Inter Metal Trade Ltd. v. CCE, Indore - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 265 (Tri. -Del.). 3. Learned CS. on behalf of the respondents reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that it has been alleged in the show cause notice that the respondents contravened Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 which is purl mates to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contemplated by Clause (d) of Rule 173Q(1), goods could not have been confiscated. In the case of inter Metal Trade Ltd. (supra) it has been observed that clause (d) of Rule 173Q provides for contravention of provision of rules with intent to evade payment of duty and would apply in context of other rules including Rules 53, 173G and 226. It is noted that clause (d) of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules provides confiscation of goods for contravention of provision of rules or notification issued under these rules with intent to evade payment of duty. In the present case, there is no material available that the excess quantity of goods found during stock verification was art attempt of clandestine removal of goods. Hence, confiscation o the exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he premises daily accountal is not possible. There is difference between non-accountal and non-entry in the accounts as explained in the Tribunals decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Continental Chemicals -2002 (140) E.L.T. 116 (Tri. - Mumbai). The present case seems to be of negligence in not entering the goods in the RG-1 register rather inability to explain the non-accountal in the RG-I register. In view of these we hold that the goods are not liable to confiscation." 6. Learned DR. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of PNP Castings (P) Ltd. (supra) which was passed prior to the decision in the case of Navkar Wires Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is also noted that in the case of PNP Casti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
