Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (12) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 48.200 MT of Twisted Bars and 51.21 MTs. of Flats was found than the recorded balance in daily production register. On inquiry, the representative of the manufacturer explained that the excess goods found on verification was due to incorrect accounting of the stock in register. After issue of the show cause notice, the original authority confiscated the seized goods and allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 3 Lakhs and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs on M/s. Magnum Steels Ltd. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order set aside the confiscation of goods and reduced penalty to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only). 3. In Appeal No. E/1092/04-NB (SM), the facts are that on 7-9-2001, the cen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bombay)], where it was held that the question whether one had intention to evade payment is a question of fact. Secondly, Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 173Q do not admittedly use the expression "with intent to evade payment of duty", which is found in clause (d) thereof. It can, therefore, be prima facie, assumed that the liability in terms of Rule 173Q (1) sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) does not depend upon mens rea. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of International Engg. Mfg. Services P. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 551 (Tribunal-Delhi), where it was held that the seized goods were the goods manufactured by the appellants and these were not entered into statutory records. Rule 17 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reof in the production records, viz. RG-I, would only be a technical/clerical omission and not a substantial violation to call for ordering confiscation." It is also pointed out that in this case the distinction has been made between Bhillai Conductors and Kirloskar Brothers case. The fact of a non-duty paid removal of excisable goods read with non-accountal is not a case of a simplicitor non-accountal. (2) CCE, Rajkot v. Bhajrang Industries [2004 (173) E.L.T. 304 (Tribunal-Mumbai)] Where it was held that "non-accountal of goods in RG-I register - basic records such as bill book, receipt book, purchase register, etc. found at the time of search itself and expressly placed under seizure - No material of clandestine non-duty paid r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e reason for non-accountal is that the weight of the goods manufactured is recorded on an approximate basis but when the goods were cleared and entries were made in RG-I register, it is based on the actual weight, which created a difference. Since the respondents have no intention to remove the goods and they have been penalized for non-accountal, confiscation should not be warranted. 7. On examining. I find that under Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) to Rule 25, the goods are liable for confiscation if the producer or manufacturer does not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him. In both the cases, the manufacturer has explained the reason that there is excess of the goods as compared to the physical stock and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not required for confiscation of the non-accounted goods. Therefore, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as far as dropping of confiscation of goods and redemption fine is concerned. I uphold the order of original authority for confiscation of the goods and allowing goods to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine. However I reduce redemption fine in Appeal No. 1088/2004-NB (SM) to Rs. l Lakhs (Rupees One Lakh Only) and in case of Appeal No. E/1092/2004-NR (SM) to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only). The penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld in both the appeals. 8. Both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed. Order dictated pronounced in open Court on 9-12-2005. - - TaxTMI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates