9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.S. Round, M.S. Strips, M.S. Sheets etc. They are availing exemption under Notification 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 for the period 2006 and 2007. 3. On the basis of intelligence, the factory premises of the appellants was visited and it was found that the finished goods were not recorded in their RG-I Register. Therefore, a case has been made out against the appellants as the appellants have not entered the finished goods in their RG-I Register with an intention to remove clandestinely. The goods were seized and certain records were also taken into the custody. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants with a proposal to confiscate the goods and to impose the penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als). Therefore, aggrieved from the impugned order, the appellant is before me. 4. Shri Rajesh Chibber, ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the appellant is an SSI Unit and claiming exemption limit available under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. and paying duty after crossing the exemption limit. As the appellant was availing exemption at the beginning of the financial year, they were procuring the inputs cleared under exemption as no Cenvat credit was available. However, when the appellant was clearing the goods on payment of duty, they were procuring inputs on payment of duty. The receipt of duty paid/non-duty paid inputs was accounted for in Form-4 Register. The finished goods removed out of non-duty paid st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the Revenue, submitted that Form-4 Register is not a proper Register to record the finished goods. He further submitted that the assessee requires to enter finished goods in their RG-I Register and to maintain the Register properly, which they have failed to do so. Moreover, they could not explain the reasons why they have not entered this goods in RG-I Register. He also emphasises on Paras 15 & 16 of the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that Form-4 Register is not reliable and it has not been maintained properly. As the goods are not entered into RG-I Register which is the appropriate Register to maintain the record of finished goods therefore, mens rea is proved by the Department that these goods ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e corroborated with a definite evidence but in this case, merely the goods are not entered into RG-I Register does not prove of charge of mala fide on the part of the appellants. The goods were entered in Form-4 Register, which is not denied by the lower authorities. The only denial is that Form-4 Register is not proper Register to maintain the records and that does not bear any signature of the appellants. Although, the goods were not properly entered in RG-I Register. That does not prove mala fide of the appellants. Therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation in the facts and circumstances of the case. As the goods are not liable for confiscation, therefore, redemption fine is not imposable, but as the appellants are not maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
