9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner, Central Excise, Allahabad wherein he has confiscated the seized stock of M.S. Ingots and Runners and Risers but gave an option to redeem the said seized goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- upon the appellants under Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants factory was checked by the officer of D.G. Anti Evasion, Kanpur in the night of 3/4-9-1996 on the basis of information from Income Tax Department. On physical verification 306.9 M.T. of M.S. Ingots and 56.00 M.T. of Runners and Risers were found in the factory. Shri Madan Hada, Director of the appellants company who was present in the factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghing 94 kgs. each, however, if the molten material is less than the full capacity of moulds which are not fully filled, the result would be shortage of weight and as such an average weight of individual Ingots as 92 kgs. instead of 94 kgs. had been recorded in the RG 1 since about one year and the difference of 2 kgs. per Ingots reached 138.065 M.T. of Ingots and 24.810 M.T. of Runners and Risers. They also stated that their factory had always been checked and not a single case of clandestine removal has been detected against them and as such the order of the Dy. Commissioner is manifestly erroneous and completely overlooks the basic distinction of excess production vis-a-vis clandestine removal. 4. Personal hearing was fixed for 13-8-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh reported in 1997 (18) RLT 138 (CEGAT-NB) [1997 (93) E.L.T. 443 (Tribunal)]. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants have removed the goods without payment of duty or there was any preparation having been made for such removal. In these circumstances the confiscation of seized goods and granting an option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) is not sustainable in the light of the Tribunal s Order referred to above. 6. The adjudicating authority has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. I find that under Rule 173Q(1)(b) any manufacturer who does not account for any excisable goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 512 (Tribunal). In the circumstances, I modify the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q to that under Rule 226 and in this regard rely upon the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Indian Steel Wire Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 298 (T) = 1994 (54) ECR 643 (T). 7. Rule 226 also provides for confiscation of goods of which due entry has not been made in the prescribed records, account or register within the time prescribed in the relevant rule. The appellants failed to made entries in the daily production account prescribed under Rule 53 and, therefore, the goods found in excess of the balance recorded in daily stock account are liable to confiscation. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
