9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 12.379 MT of M.S. Angles valued at Rs. 1,10,793/- with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/-. 2. Shri S.C. Kamra, ld. Advocate along with Sh. G.K. Mahajan, ld. Advocate submitted that the appellants manufacture Iron steel re-rolled products; that Central Excise Officers seized 12.379 MT of M.S. Angles and found out shortage of 12.463 MT of M.S. Bars and rods, 0.940 MT M.S. Scrap, 100 kg. of non alloy steel bars and 5.837 MT flats, total valued at Rs. 2,64,814/-; that the excess stock was found on the basis of counting of the goods and not on the basis of actual weight; that the excess stock found can not be confiscated in the absence of any allegation of its being clandestinely removed. Reliance was placed on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable. 3. Countering the arguments Shri J. Singh, learned JDR, submitted that the stock taking was conducted in the presence of Sh. Ashok Babu Garg who did not object to the shortages and excesses detected by the officers and in his statement he even offered to pay the duty; that this goes to show that the excesses and shortages of the excisable goods have been accepted by the appellants. He finally mentioned that in the show cause notice dated 28-7-1997 it is clearly mentioned that the appellants were indulging in storing the fully finished excisable goods in the factory premises without accounting for them in the statutory records as well as in the clandestine removal of them in a manner other than as provided under the Central Excise l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants. Clause (b) of Rule 173Q(1) provides for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty, if any, on manufacturer does not account for excisable goods. There is no requirement of any mens rea for invoking the provisions of this clause. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Enforcement v. MCT. M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Ors. - 1996 (12) RLT 365 (S.C.) that it is the breach of "Civil obligation" which attracts penalty and a finding that the person has contravened the provision of the law would attract the levy of penalty irrespective of the fact whether the contravention was made by the defaulter with any guilty intention or not. Again the Supreme Court in the case of Z.B. Nagarkar v. U.O.I. - 1999 (112) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
