Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 986 - AT - Central ExciseConfiscation of goods - Entry not done in RG-1 register - Penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- The appellants do not dispute the fact of non-accountal of this stock of writing and printing paper which represents more than one day’s production. The only explanation given by the appellant is that there was no intention on their part to clear the excess stock without payment of duty. In our view, this explanation is not acceptable, as in terms of the provisions of Rule 25(1)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, penalty under this Rule is attracted for non-accountal of any excisable goods produced or manufactured by an assessee and in this regard mens rea is not required to be established. Therefore, the confiscation of the goods along with the option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty on appellant company is upheld. Valuation of goods - Inclusion of freight value - Held that:- In terms of provision of Section 4 w.e.f. 1-7-2000, the “place of removal”, in terms of its definition given in Section 4(3)(c) cover only the factory or warehouse where the goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty and from where such goods are removed. It is only with effect from 14-5-2003 that clause (iii) was added to Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 so as to include “depot, premises of the consignment agent or any other place or premises from where excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from their factory”, within the definition of “place of removal”. But during the period from 1-7-2000 to 13-5-2003, the depot or consignment agent’s premises were not included in the definition of “place of removal”. Therefore, during the period till 13-5-2003, the freight expenses from the factory gate to depot would not be includible in the assessable value of the goods and duty demand on this count would not be sustainable. It is only with effect from 14-5-2003 that the “depot” had also been included in the definition of “place of removal” and accordingly w.e.f. 14-5-2003 only, the freight expenses from the factory to depot would be includible in the assessable value and accordingly duty demand on this basis would survive only for the period from 14-5-2003 onwards. Thus out of total duty demand of ₹ 2,45,215/-, only duty demand for the period from 14-5-2003 onwards is upheld and balance amount of duty demand for the period from August, 2001 to 13-5-2003 is set aside. Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- Penalty is imposable on the persons who acquire possession of any excisable goods or are in any manner, concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with the excisable goods which they knew a bad reason to believe are liable for confiscation. No evidence has been produced by the department that Shri Amit Kumar and Shri R.P. Gupta, the authorised signatories of the appellant company, were involved in any such activity in respect of excisable goods which they knew a bad reason to believe are liable for confiscation. For non-accountal of finished goods in RG I register for which penalty on the appellant company under Rule 25(1)(b) has been imposed, these two persons cannot be penalized by invoking Rule 26. In view of this, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules on Shri R.P. Gupta and Shri Amit Kumar is not called for and the same is set aside. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|