9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they were supplying 90% of the goods Government showing that the goods were made on the orders received from the various Government Departments. 3. On 12-12-1997 the officers of Central Excise visited their factory and conducted physical verification of the stock. They found an excess of power control cables valued at Rs. 11,95,078/-. The statement of Shri Sanjay Gupta, Managing Director of the company was recorded. He admitted the excess recovery of the goods not recorded on the statutory books of accounts. The goods were placed under the seizure as the explanation furnished by the Managing Director was not found satisfactory and the goods were considered liable to be confiscated. A Show-cause Notice was issued to the appellants aski ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till the date of the visit of the officers. He submitted that there was no evidence placed on record to show that there was an intention to evade payment of duty. Learned Counsel submitted that for purpose of confiscation there should be intention to evade payment of duty in terms of Rule 173Q(1)(b) and 173Q(1)(d). Learned Counsel submits that there is a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. [2000 (125) E.L.T. 789 (Tri.) = 2000 (91) ECR 569] wherein the question of confiscation of excess goods and the confiscation under Rule 173Q was considered in detail and the Tribunal held that in the absence of establishing the intent to evade payment of duty goods can not be confiscated under Rule 173Q(1)(b) or 173Q(1)(d). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as much higher and could not be termed as the production of a day or shift during which the officers were visiting or the earlier shift for which the quantity manufactured was to be recorded. Learned DR submits that in the absense of this the case is not covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. cited above. She, therefore, submits that confiscation of the goods under Rule 173Q is warranted as correctly held by the Authorities below. 9. In regard to the redemption fine the learned DR submits that looking to the value of the goods the redemption fine is just nominal. 10. Learned DR , therefore, submits that penalty was also warranted in the instant case and prays that appeal may be rejected. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coming to imposition of penalty under Rule 226, I note that non-accountal of the goods is established. I further note that the value of the seized goods is so high as cannot be termed to be the production of the period up to the time of visit of the officers which was yet to be recorded. Looking to the facts of the case I hold that it is not only the case for imposition of penalty of Rs. 2000/- but also the confiscation of the goods under Rule 226. The goods are, therefore, correctly confiscated, however looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the goods can be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand). I hold accordingly. 15. But for the above modifications the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
