TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1992. The allegation in short is that on physical verification carried out of the finished goods in the factory in respect of goods nuts, bolts and screws, it was found to be in excess than the recorded balance in RG-1 register. The statement of Shri Manish Aggarwal was also recorded who admitted the excess stock of finished goods than the recorded balance of RG-1 register. Therefore, the department alleged contraventions of Rule 173G and 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants in reply to the show cause notice took a specific stand that the goods had not reached RG-1 stage, as they were still in unpacked loose condition, and as per Delhi Central Excise Collectorate Trade Notice No. 3-C.E./84, dated 28-1-1984 the goods would reach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en confirmed by the Learned Collector. 2. I have heard the Learned Consultant, Shri R. Pal Singh for the appellants and the Learned DR, Shri P. Dass for the Revenue. 3. The Learned Consultant argued and drew attention to the evidence of the case and submitted that the managing director, was a young person of 22 years and he had taken up this job recently and did not have full knowledge of the excise procedure. He submitted that the officials had taken 18 hours to count the goods, the production was of the previous night and they were to have to put the same in packets after weightment and numbering and thereafter it would have been entered in the RG-1 on the morning of 10th Nov., 1992. In the meantime, the officer had entered the premis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory. He also submitted that the confiscation of the goods is sustainable if it is shown that there has been violation of the provisions of excise goods in respect of offending goods. In this connection he relied on the judgment in the case of Shiva Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 319 and that of Snack Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 231. He submitted that unaccounted goods in RG-1 is not a technical breach even if GP 1 has been issued and entry in PLA accounted for, as has been held in the case of Indian Cork Mills Ltd. and Others v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 513. The confiscation of goods in such cases has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot sustainable. In this regard he has relied on two judgments. He also pointed out from these judgments that for the purpose of confiscation, the department has to show that the assessee has clandestinely removed or attempted to remove the goods. The Learned DR submitted that it is not necessary to show that there has been any attempt to clandestinely remove the goods but once the entries are not done then that itself is a ground for confiscation. 7. I have carefully considered this plea and have seen the citations noted by both the sides. In the case of Indian Cork Mills Ltd. (supra) relied by the Learned DR, it is noted that the party had already removed the goods and in some cases the party had already loaded the goods in a lorry and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
