TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of day of visit of the officers and was yet to be entered. It is not the case where the records were not being maintained by the assessee for quite long period. It is not necessary for a manufacturer to enter the production immediately and the same can be entered even at the end of the day. If the officers makes a visit in the meanwhile and found the goods having not been entered, in my view, no case can be made if the records are otherwise upto date. In the absence of any dispute in factual position, RG-1 register was fully maintained at the time of visit of the officers, non-entry of that day production in the record, by itself, could not result in confiscation of the same or in imposition of penalty - thus goods are not liable to confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rule 25 and 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal against above order, Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the order of confiscation but maintained penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) on the manufacturer for non-maintenance of RG-1 register. Penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) imposed on Shri Rajesh Ishwarbhai Vilapara was set aside. Hence, the present appeal. 4. For better appreciation of the reasoning adopted by Commissioner(Appeals), I reproduce relevant paragraph from the impugned order. 5. I have carefully gone through the case records as well as oral submission made by the appellants at the time of personal hearing. It is noticed that the closing balance of manufactured goods on 18.6.08 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by them in the appeal memorandum is appropriate. Further, the Hon ble Tribunal has rightly held in the case of Indra Metal Works that the penalty can be imposed for non-maintenance of accounts. From the plain reading of above relied upon decision in the case of Jayshree Plastics, it reveals that when there is no malafide intention, the confiscation of the finished goods merely due to non-accountal of the same in RG-1 register is not sustainable. Admittedly, in the present case, there was nothing on record to show any malafides or intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant company. Therefore, I hold that the confiscation of the finished goods is not proper and the impugned order is liable to be set aside to that extent. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered, in my view, no case can be made if the records are otherwise upto date. In the absence of any dispute in factual position, RG-1 register was fully maintained at the time of visit of the officers, non-entry of that day production in the record, by itself, could not result in confiscation of the same or in imposition of penalty. It is also not the Revenue s case that the raw material required for manufacture of the said goods was not duly accounted for in the records, thus, making the excess found goods as tainted goods, meant to be cleared without payment of duty. Having recorded the raw material, it is obligatory and mandatory for the assessee to record the final production in the record and the chances of clearances of the same w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
