TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory premises on 28-8-2002 they found finished goods valued at Rs. 8,11,621.42 in excess of the stock recorded in RG-1 register; that the officers also found shortage of raw material namely High Impact Polyesterene weighing 3123.771 kgs. valued at Rs. 1,56,188.55; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 7/2003, dated 30-5-2003 confiscated excess finished goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2,05,000/- and confirmed all other dues mentioned in the show cause notice; that on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confiscation of the excess finished goods and redemption fine imposed on them as well as denial of Modvat credit on the shortage of raw material found by the Central Excise Officers. The learned Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court as reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. A256. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of CCE, Aurangabad v. Sipta Coated Steel Ltd. - 2000 (125) E.L.T. 578 (Tri.). 4. Countering the arguments Mrs. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that the finished goods which were found in excess were duly packed in ready to go condition and this has not been controverted by the Appellants; that the authorized signatory in his statement dated 28-8-2002 had clearly admitted that they had the practice of recording production of colour television sets only at the time of dispatch, in RG-1 register which is not as per the rules; that as the goods had not been accounted for in the RG-1 register they are liable for confiscation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-rule (1) of Rule 173Q do not admittedly use the expression "with intent to evade payment of duty", which is found in clause (d) thereof. It can, therefore, be prima facie, assumed that the liability in terms of Rule 173Q(1), clauses (a), (b) and (c) does not depend upon mens rea. Rule 25 is pari materia with the provisions of Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In view of judgment of Bombay High Court decision in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. is not applicable. Accordingly the finished goods found in excess are liable to confiscation. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we agree with the learned Advocate that the redemption fine imposed is on the higher side. The interest of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
