Tribunal allows redemption of excess goods with redemption fine, finding no duty evasion or fault.

The tribunal allowed the appellant to redeem excess goods upon payment of a redemption fine, noting they were support structure base manufactured for another company as per a purchase order. The goods were not entered in RG-1 records due to pending painting and testing, as required by the purchase order. The delay in entry was not an evasion of duty, as acknowledged by the authorities. The tribunal also found the appellant not at fault for goods found outside the factory premises, as the superintendent did not object to the stacking of materials earlier. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Confiscation of excess goods, non-entry in RG-1 records, goods found outside factory premises

Confiscation of Excess Goods:
The judgment addresses the confiscation of excess goods by the authorities below, allowing the appellant to redeem them on payment of a redemption fine. The appellant argues that the goods in question were support structure base, manufactured on behalf of another company as per a purchase order. The goods were not entered in RG-1 records as painting and testing were pending, per the purchase order requirements. The appellant sought permission to enter the goods in RG-1 records upon clearance, which was granted. The judgment notes that the Asst. Commr. did not dispute the need for painting and testing, as per the contract terms. The tribunal finds that the entry in RG-1 was not an attempt to evade duty, given the circumstances, and rules in favor of the appellant.

Non-Entry in RG-1 Records:
The appellant's advocate argues that the goods were not entered in RG-1 records due to pending painting and testing, as required by the purchase order. Permission was obtained to enter the goods in RG-1 records upon clearance. The tribunal observes that the goods were not yet painted and tested, as acknowledged by the authorities. The contract terms between the appellant and the customer mandated painting and testing, justifying the delay in entry. The tribunal rules that the delay in entry was not an evasion of duty, leading to the appeal being allowed.

Goods Found Outside Factory Premises:
Regarding the goods found outside the factory premises, the appellant had informed the superintendent about using the area for stacking materials before the visit by officers. Although stacking goods outside violated excise laws, the superintendent did not advise against it when informed earlier. The tribunal finds that the appellant cannot be faulted for the violation due to the lack of objection from the jurisdictional superintendent. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed with relief for the appellants.

---