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>Tribunal upholds penalty, cancels confiscation fine under Rule 173Q.</h1> <h3>POOJA FORGE PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI</h3> POOJA FORGE PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 37 (Tribunal) Issues:Imposition of confiscation fine and penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for alleged non-accounting of goods in RG-1 register.Judgment Details:The appeal involved the imposition of a confiscation fine of Rs. 40,000 and penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The allegation was that goods manufactured on 9-11-1992 were found in excess in the finished room compared to the recorded balance in the RG-1 register. The Assistant Collector rejected the appellant's claim that the goods had not reached RG-1 stage as they were still unpacked, stating that even in such a case, the goods should have been accounted for in the RG-1 register. The Assistant Collector found an intention to clandestinely remove the goods without duty payment, a decision upheld by the Learned Collector.The Learned Consultant argued that the goods had not yet entered the RG-1 stage and could not have been removed clandestinely in an unpacked condition. He cited precedents where confiscation within the factory premises was not upheld. The Learned DR contended that non-entry of goods in the RG-1 register justified confiscation, citing relevant case law.The Tribunal noted that the goods had not reached the RG-1 stage as they were still in the finishing room awaiting weighing, sorting, and packing. The failure to enter the pending balance in the RG-1 register was deemed a violation. The Tribunal upheld the penalty for non-maintenance of registers but set aside the confiscation and fine for goods still in the finishing room, citing precedents where confiscation within the factory premises was not sustainable.In conclusion, the penalty for non-maintenance of registers was upheld, while the confiscation and fine for goods still in the finishing room were set aside based on the goods not having reached the RG-1 stage and no attempt made by the assessee to clandestinely remove the goods.
TaxTMI 