Dismissal of Appeal for Failure to Enter Clearance in Stock Register Deemed Violation of Central Excise Rules

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant's failure to enter clearance in the daily stock register, despite paying duty before the show cause notice, was deemed a violation of Central Excise Rules. Discrepancies in the register and rubbed balances indicated potential mala fide intentions, justifying the Rs. 50,000 penalty for non-entry. Distinct from a previous case, where prompt duty payment led to penalty dismissal, the Tribunal upheld the penalty here due to the appellant's actions not mirroring the circumstances of the prior case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for non-entry of clearance in daily stock register.
2. Contention regarding duty payment prior to show cause notice issuance.
3. Comparison with a previous case regarding penalty justification.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 for not entering the clearance of MT flats in the daily stock register, even though the duty demand was not contested by the appellants. The Excise Officer found discrepancies in the register, indicating a lack of entry for the cleared goods under six invoices, with the opening and closing balance for the next day being rubbed out.

2. The appellant argued that since duty was paid before the show cause notice was issued, they should not be liable for any penalty. They relied on a previous Tribunal decision and subsequent Supreme Court dismissal of an appeal, citing a similar situation where duty was paid promptly upon demand, leading to the penalty being deemed unjustified.

3. However, the Revenue contended that the circumstances, including the non-entry of clearance in the register and the rubbed balances, suggested mala fide intentions on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from the previous decision relied upon by the appellant, emphasizing that the failure to enter the clearance in the daily stock register constituted a contravention of Central Excise Rules, justifying the imposition of a penalty. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the appellant's actions not aligning with the circumstances of the earlier case where penalty justification was denied.

---