TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be said that by merely not entering in RG-I Register, there was any intention to evade duty by the appellants - The goods are not liable for confiscation in the facts and circumstances of the case. As the goods are not liable for confiscation, therefore, redemption fine is not imposable, but as the appellants are not maintaining the statutory record properly, therefore, they should be penalized for not maintaining the record properly. To penalize for non-maintaining of proper record, Rule 27 is the proper Rule to impose penalty on the appellants – Penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed on the appellants. - E/2702/2009-SM(BR) - 409/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 12-7-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal, J. Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate, for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inished goods were entered in Form-4 Register and as, the appellants are availing SSI exemption and they are manufacturing dutiable as well as exempted goods. Therefore, these goods could not be entered in RG-I Register but they are duly entered in Form-4 Register. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to verify whether these goods are properly entered in Form-4 Register or not and if the goods are liable for confiscation, then these goods shall be cleared on payment of duty and to impose penalty accordingly. The appellants challenged the said order on the ground that as the appellants are availing SSI exemption and if the impugned goods are within exemption limits, therefore, no duty is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be entered in RG-I Register and the appellant could not explain in detail regarding non-entry of these finished goods in RG-I Register at the time of visit, but as the goods were manufactured by the appellants from the raw materials entered in Form-4 Register and in Form-4 Register showing manufacturing of impugned goods, therefore, there is no mala fide intention on the part of the appellants to clear these goods clandestinely. These goods could not enter in RG-I Register only due to the above stated reason. In that circumstances, the goods are not liable to be confiscated and therefore, no redemption fine is imposable and no penalty is leviable. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, to confiscate the goods under Rule 25, ingredient of Section 11AC of the Act are required i.e. fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement and suppression of fact or contravention of Rule/Act with an intent to evade payment of duty. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it reveals that the inputs procured by the appellants have been duly entered in Form-4 Register. Therefore, 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-I Register, but it cannot be said that by merely not entering in RG-I Register, there was any intention to evade duty by the appellants. Moreover, Form-4 Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
