9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods seized but since the goods were provisionally released, appropriated the amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the security in lieu of confiscation. 2. On 27-8-1987 the officers of the Central Excise paid a surprise visit to the factory of the appellants, where they noticed excess stock of 4862 Decorative Laminated sheets, as, when the stock was compared with the entries in the RG-1 register, these goods were found to have been not taken on record in the same register. The Officers therefore seized the excess quantity found and recorded the statement of Shri Navinbhai K. Patel, Director of the appellants firm, who submitted that the RG-1 register was maintained by him on the basis of the production figures supplied by workers of their factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en took me through the provisions of Rule 173Q(d) and submitted that the storing of the goods in the B.S.R. had to be coupled with an intention to remove them without payment of duty and there being no allegation to that effect in the show cause notice, the question of imposition of penalty and ordering confiscation under Rule 173Q did not arise. He then pleaded that the proceedings for imposing penalty and ordering confiscation of the goods were in the nature of Quasi Criminal Proceedings and the penalty could be imposed only if the intention to commit breach of the statutory rules was established. In his submission, the mens rea is an essence in ascertaining the liability of the appellants to penalty. In support of his contention, he plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority below is not proper and it does not appreciate the facts correctly and hence the same is required to be set aside. 4. Ms. Lipika Majumdar Roy Choudhury, the Ld. SDR, however, supported the order of the authority below. She has submitted that the factual position is not challenged inasmuch as the finding of the goods not accounted for in the RG-1 register and their seizure from the B.S.R. is not in dispute. The defence with which the appellants have come is only in relation to the goods being in semi-finished condition and the other points being legal points as to the applicability of the provisions of Rule 173Q. In her submission, the legal position as incorporated in Rule 173Q are clear and unambiguous and where the mens rea is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e stored. Having known the provisions of storage in BSR, the appellants, if their plea was to be believed, could not have removed the goods to BSR unless they had taken them to have been fully manufactured. The fact of storage in BSR also negatives the contention that the goods were not finished goods. 6A. Considering the technical objections raised, the Ld. Adv. for the appellants has pleaded that the proceedings in the nature of ordering confiscation and imposition of personal penalty, being quasi-criminal in nature, mens rea has to be established. It is however not possible to fully endorse the submission made. Though mens rea may have a bearing on the crime committed, it cannot be accepted that all or any of the acts committed without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
