RG-1 REGISTER

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

RG-1 Register is stock book for excise manufacturing unit, which contain details of manufacture, clearance and duty paid with value date wise. RG-1 Register is to be maintained date wise, for opening stock, quantity manufactured, quantity cleared on payment of duty/without payment of duty/closing stock, amount of duty involved, invoice and data. At the end of the month a summary has to be prepared to show the opening stock, production, clearance and closing stock and value of clearance with duty amount. The said register is not required to be submitted to the Central Excise Department.

E.R.1/E.R.3 is the summery of RG-1 register which one submits to excise department, but one can not deny to produce the same for any scrutiny / verification if asked for, in writing by AC/DC for specific purpose, Audit party has access to all the books and records maintained under excise and/or any other law to run the business, one can not deny to produce the records to them when asked. The department has already clarified that the unit can have its own record with the same details as appearing in the RG1 register.  And hence it is up to the excise unit to have RG1 or its own computer generated report duly signed with all details of RG1.

Case laws

In ‘Prabhat Rotopack (P) Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow’ – 2013 (8) TMI 385 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the Tribunal found that plastic film is a product manufactured by the appellant, though it is for captive use. The appellant admittedly is maintaining its account in the RG-1 Register by treating the same as good manufactured, though for captive consumption.   In view of this to the extent of plastic film not accounted in the RG-1 Register, the same would be liable for confiscation.   There is also no explanation as to why in respect of plastic granules used for plastic film found unaccounted CENVAT credit has not been availed while admittedly the appellant was availing the CENVAT credit in respect of the plastic granules.   In vies of this, the confiscation of plastic film and the penalty on this count is upheld by the Tribunal.

In ‘Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore V. Power Electrical & Electronics’ – 2013 (8) TMI 384 - CESTAT NEW DELHI at the time of officer’s visit to the factory on 12.9.1997 the stock of the finished goods was checked. 10 transformers of 100 KVA were found short vis-à-vis the balance of RG-1 Register.   The company explained that the transformers had been put in the oven for reovening.   The Tribunal held that just because there was no entry in the RG-1 Register regarding transfer of 10 transformers from the bonded stored room to the manufacturing section of the factory for receiving and when this fact was told to the officers at that time but still they did not verify, it cannot be concluded that there was unexplained shortage of 10 transformers.   In view of this the Tribunal held that the duty demand on the 10 transformers has been correctly set aside.

In ‘Popular Iron & Steel Co. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad’ – 2013 (8) TMI 383 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the production made by the appellants during the impugned period is clearly entered in Form 4 Register. Admittedly these goods are not entered in RG-1 Register.   The Tribunal held that by merely not entering in RG-1 register it cannot be said that there was any intention to evade duty by the appellant.

In ‘Onida Sake Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida’ – 2010 (11) TMI 586 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI the first component of duty demand is Rs.1,54,575/- in respect of 141 CTVs found vis-à-vis the balance in RG-1 register at the time of stock taking of the finished goods which has been conducted in the presence of Sr. Manager (F&A) who admitted the shortage and debited the duty on the spot in the PLA and RG 23A Part II register. No explanation for this shortage has been given and the same has been admitted.   The appellant’s plea that there was no shortage is totally unacceptable.

In ‘Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai V. Bhagawandas Metals Limited’ – 2012 (10) TMI 729 - CESTAT, CHENNAI the demand raised in the show cause notice is barred by limitation for the reason that it was the practice of the assessee to raise an invoice for captive consumption of a large quantity of ingots and debiting the same in the RG-1 register and used in the manufacture of final products not on the same date of their issue but on subsequent dates and although the factory was not equipped to manufacture final products using such large quantities of ingots, no objection was raised by the Department to issue the large quantity of ingots right from the commencement of the factory in 1995.   Therefore the Tribunal held that the demand is time barred.

In ‘Ranjeet Gupta V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad’ – 2013 (1) TMI 639 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI it was held that the impugned goods were not liable to confiscation for their non entry in RG-1 register.

In ‘Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow V. Rako Agrochem Private Limited’ – 2010 (9) TMI 302 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI it was held that there is a clear finding that the party has verified entries in the RG-1 register and material issue slips indicating that all the goods which were received back due to shelf life nearing expiry were duly issued for reprocessing.   This finding of Commissioner (Appeals) has not been refuted by furnishing any material in the grounds of appeal.   The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Department.