9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the course of preventive check, the Central Excise Officers seized stock found in excess, which was not entered in RG-1 Register for 15 days, weighing 5,494.400 kgs. of aluminium wire valued at Rs. 5,27,462.40 under the reasonable belief that the said aluminium wire were offending in nature and liable for confiscation under the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is also found that on the invoices bearing Nos. 129, 130 and 131 dated 22-08-1998, the assessee has not paid the Central Excise duty and in the said statutory records last entry was 145 on Page No. 11 dated 20-08-1998. The above seized goods were fully finished and ready in marketable condition. Thus, the goods were cleared by the assessee without debiting the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on record on the basis of which it can be concluded that the appellants intended to clear the finished goods, which were accounted in RG-1 register clandestinely. The above view is held in several cases; some of the citations are given below : 2001 (47) R.L.T. 343 (CEGAT) 2001 (129) E.L.T. 57 (Tri.-Del.) In view of the above, the order of confiscation of seized goods passed by the lower authority is set aside. Further, the order passed by the lower authority imposing the redemption fine is also set aside. Further, the appellants have failed to enter their finished goods in RG-1 register and have not complied with the provisions of Central Excise Rules in this regard. However, as d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of non-accountal without mens rea is a minor offence, which can be at best attract a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- along with confiscation of the goods under Rule 226 ibid. The Learned Member (Judicial) has rightly held having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- for non-accountal in RG-I would suffice to meet the ends of justice in the case. I would thus concur with the view taken by the Learned Member (Judicial). The point of difference is answered accordingly. 8. Further, he relied upon the case of M/s. Anil Sunil Trade Investments (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-III, reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 616 (Tri.-Bang.). 9. In view of the settled position of law on the subject, I do not find any meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
