9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails had not been entered in the RG 1 register. Shri Deepak Bhatnagar, partner of the firm, in his statement, stated that four television sets were not in working order and eight were to be inspected by representatives of M/s. VCP Limited (apparently the prospective buyer). The television sets were therefore, seized and adjudication proceedings commenced. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise, ordered confiscation of television sets but permitted them to be redeemed under Rule 173Q on payment of Rs. 15,000/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 10, 000/- under the same rule. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the appellant s contention that intention to evade the duty or removing the goods clandestinely has not been proved. Noting that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or. 4. Shri Mewa Singh adopts the reasonings in the Collectors appeal. 5. The assessee s claim that Shri Bhatnagar has stated that goods were that day s production, is not supported by the statement of Shri Deepak Bhatnagar, a copy of which has been enclosed in the appeal of the assessee. The reason given by Shri Bhatnagar in his statement was that 8 TV sets were to be inspected by the quality control inspector and four were not in working order. 6. Therefore the claim in the assessee s appeal that the goods were day s production fails. Shri Bhatnagar had further agreed that the particulars of the raw-material of the components such as picture tubes, cabinets as indicated in the form IV register were found short by 10. While it may b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 173Q(1) are intent to evade duty . Considering these facts I am of the view that assessee s claim that this was not a case of a simple omission to enter day s production in the RG 1 register is not acceptable. While, I therefore, do not accept the department s view that intention to evade the duty need not be established for confiscation of goods which is obviously contrary to what the rules says, I accept the second contention that intention to evade can justifiably be inferred. Confiscation of the goods, therefore, is sustainable as also the penalty. Considering the value of the goods, I do not find the redemption fine and penalty disproportionate. 8. In the event, I allow the department s appeal and dismiss the appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
