TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Confiscation of Goods: Absence of Register Entry Not Enough for Seizure</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., RAJKOT Versus AMRUT CERAMICS</h3> The appeals centered on whether goods not recorded in the RG-1 register could be confiscated and released upon payment of a redemption fine. The Tribunal ... Confiscation of goods – Alleged that appellant were made no entry in RG-1 register will lead to confiscation of goods – No other evidence brought out to show that the goods were meant for the clandestine removal – Authority decided in favour of appellant Issues:Whether goods not entered in the RG-1 register are liable to confiscation and release on payment of redemption fine.Analysis:The appeals revolved around the question of whether goods not recorded in the RG-1 register are subject to confiscation and subsequent release upon payment of redemption fine. The Revenue cited various tribunal decisions, while the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on specific cases to support their arguments. In the absence of representation from the respondents, the learned DR was heard, and the records were examined.The central issue in these appeals was whether the absence of entries in the RG-1 register warranted the confiscation of goods. The charge against the respondents solely pertained to non-entry in the RG-1 register without additional evidence indicating clandestine intent. The Tribunal noted conflicting decisions on this matter, summarizing them in the case of Shree Precoated Steel v. CCE, Pune. The consensus from these decisions was that mere non-entry in the register did not constitute non-accountal of goods unless supported by other factors like unaccounted raw materials or unfinished goods. In this case, no such evidence was presented by the Revenue. The respondents satisfactorily explained the lack of daily raw material account due to the nature of the raw material used. The distinction between non-accountal and non-entry in accounts was highlighted, emphasizing the negligence in recording goods rather than actual non-accountal. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the goods were not subject to confiscation.Ultimately, the Revenue's appeals were deemed to lack merit and were rejected based on the findings and analysis presented in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
