9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excess quantity of 36.109 MTs of Guar Gum Powder (in short, G.G. Powder) vis-a-vis the recorded balance in the RG-I. Believing that the goods were liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944, the officers seized the said excess quantity of G.G. Powder and handed it over to the assessee for safe custody. On the basis of the investigative results, the department issued show-cause notice dated 31-3-99 to the appellants, alleging that the above quantity of G.G. Powder valued at Rs. 25,27,630/- and involving Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 2,02,210/- had been kept in their factory for purpose of clandestine removal without payment of duty, and proposing under Rule 173Q to confiscate the goods and impose penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This explanation offered by ld. Counsel requires to be rejected at the outset inasmuch as the appellants have never had such a case at the investigative or later stages of the case. Ld. Counsel then proceeds to challenge the order of the appellate authority on the strength of case law. He submits that the lower appellate authority has erroneously attempted to distinguish the Tribunal s decision in M/s. Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur [2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 (T) = 2000 (91) ECR 569] and has wrongly followed the decisions rendered in Jagdamba Spinning and Weaving Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh [2000 (115) E.L.T. 353] and Autolite India Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [1997 (93) E.L.T. 397]. Ld. Counsel submits that the decision in Bhillai Conductor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgent (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi [2002 (139) E.L.T. 302] (iv) United Phosphorus Limited Ors. v. CCE, Surat [2001 (133) E.L.T. 691 (T) = 2001 (46) RLT 362]. Ld. Counsel submits that, in view of the above case law, the order of confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty on the appellants cannot be sustained in law. According to him, a case of non-accountal simpliciter would, at best, attract the penal provisions of Rule 226 only. It is his further case that the quantum of redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority is too heavy to match the offence found against the appellants. He has pleaded to the same effect in relation to the penalty as well. 3. Ld. JDR, Sh. S.C. Pushkarna reiterates the findings of the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto account by the coordinate Bench in Bhillai Conductors (supra) and Bhillai Conductors was not considered by the ld. Single Member in Jagdamba Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra). In view of this position, the reliance placed by the lower appellate authority on the decisions in Autolite and Jagdamba Spinning and Weaving Mills cannot be accepted for upholding the impugned order. In all the other decisions cited before me, I find, the view taken in Bhillai Conductors appears to have been consistently followed. 5. It has been held in Bhillai Conductors (supra) that a case of non-accountal of final products without mens rea is a minor offence which can at best attract a penalty of Rs. 2000/- alongwith confiscation of the goods under Rule 226 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
