TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants are engaged in the manufacture of resistance wire, an excisable product and are registered under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 8-6-1996, the Central Excise Officers of Varanasi Division visited the appellants factory premises and conducted checking of stock of raw materials and finished goods. During the course of checking, 747.715 kgs. of Kanthal L.T. hardwire being packed in 54 boxes were found lying on production floor of the unit which were found to be unaccounted for in any of the Central Excise records and as such, the goods being in excess than what was recorded in the RG 1 Register were seized by the officers. Show cause notice was issued accordingly asking the appellants as to why 747.715 kgs. of Kanthal LT h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) is not there, as the said sub-rule was omitted with effect from 20-5-1994 vide Notification No. 23/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 20-5-1994. However, he confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the appeal filed by the party. 5. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the main point to be considered in this case is whether redemption fine was justified if the goods were not accounted for in the RG 1 Register. He submitted that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has categorically held in the case of Galada Continuous Castings Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad and Others reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 408 that redemption fine was justified if the goods were not accounted fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty also should not be the main source of revenue. In the present case, there is no clear finding by the adjudicating authority that there was an attempt to evade payment of duty. As can be seen from the records, redemption fine as well as penalty has been imposed for non-accounting the goods in the RG 1 Register. There is no iota of evidence to show that the party has attempted to remove the goods without payment of duty. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that redemption fine is not justified. Accordingly, I set aside the redemption fine and but for this modification, the orders passed by the authorities below are upheld. It is accordingly ordered. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
