1993 (10) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Challenge to Excise Order on Clocks and Watches Accountal Upheld; Duty Demand and Penalty Reduced

BIFORA CLOCK INDUSTRY LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BANGALORE

The appeal challenged the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore's order regarding non-accountal in statutory records of clocks and watch movements by the ... Accounts and records - Maintenance of Issues:1. Non-accountal in statutory records of clocks and watch movements.2. Confiscation of goods, duty demand, and penalty imposition.3. Dispute regarding the entry of clocks in statutory records.4. Seizure of clocks from the Project Office.5. Lack of evidence for clocks originally cleared and received back for repairs.6. Valuation of clocks.7. Reduction of penalty imposed on the appellants.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, regarding the non-accountal in statutory records of clocks and watch movements by the appellants. The authorities found discrepancies in the records, including unaccounted clocks and watch movements removed from the factory without proper documentation or duty payment. Consequently, the goods were confiscated, duty was demanded, and penalties were imposed on the appellants.2. The appellants argued that the clocks found packed and not entered in the statutory records were still undergoing sample testing and production, hence not yet ready for entry. However, the authorities contended that the clocks were fully finished and packed with warranty cards, indicating a violation of Central Excise law. The tribunal agreed with the lower authority's reasoning and upheld the confiscation of the clocks under relevant rules. The claim that 77 clocks were produced on the day of seizure was partially accepted, leading to a reduction in the redemption fine.3. Regarding clocks seized from the Project Office, the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence that these clocks were originally cleared and received back for repairs. The absence of documentation or correspondence supporting this claim led to the decision to uphold the duty demand for these clocks. The appellants' reliance on sales tax authorities' form No. 39 was deemed insufficient to prove the clocks' clearance and return for repairs.4. The tribunal noted that the issue of valuation was not pressed during the hearing. However, it was highlighted that if the appellants wished to pursue this matter, it would need to be addressed by a Special Bench in New Delhi due to the statutory provisions under Section 35D(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.5. In consideration of the case's circumstances, the tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants to Rs. 30,000, emphasizing the importance of upholding justice while making modifications to the original order. The Editor's comments emphasized the necessity of addressing issues related to the rate of duty or value of goods before the appropriate jurisdictional bench, even if not actively pursued during the appeal hearing.