Tribunal upholds penalties for non-compliance with maintenance rules on motor vehicle parts.

DD. INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-I

DD. INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-I - 2004 (176) E.L.T. 518 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods, demand of duty, and penalty confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Non-maintenance of RG I register and discrepancies in recording production and clearances.
3. Non-receipt of inputs back within 60 days for job work under Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules.

Issue 1 - Confiscation of Goods, Demand of Duty, and Penalty:
The Appellant, a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts, appealed against the confirmation of confiscation of goods, demand of duty, and penalty. The Appellant argued that discrepancies in the RG I register were due to a sick clerk and production was recorded in production slips. The Appellant relied on precedents to support the argument that unaccounted goods not removed clandestinely should not lead to confiscation. However, the Senior Departmental Representative contended that the Appellant violated Rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules by not maintaining the RG I register up to date, justifying penalty and confiscation. The Tribunal held that failure to maintain the RG I register as required by law rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Rules 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine imposed.

Issue 2 - Non-Maintenance of RG I Register and Discrepancies:
The Appellant failed to maintain the RG I register up to date, leading to discrepancies in recording production and clearances. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory requirement of daily entries in the RG I register under Rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules was not fulfilled. Despite the Appellant's explanation of a sick clerk, the Tribunal found the goods liable for confiscation under Rules 173Q and 226. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal affirmed the penalty imposed but reduced the redemption fine considering the value of goods and duty involved.

Issue 3 - Non-Receipt of Inputs Back Within 60 Days:
Regarding non-receipt of inputs back within 60 days for job work under Rule 57F, the Appellant argued that most goods were returned within the stipulated period. The Senior Departmental Representative referred to the Commissioner's condition of receiving goods back within 60 days and argued for penalty imposition. The Tribunal acknowledged the condition but found that all inputs were received back by the Appellant. Consequently, the duty demand on inputs was set aside, but penalties for non-maintenance of RG I register and delayed receipt of inputs were upheld, albeit reduced. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal accordingly, reducing the penalties imposed.