Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether goods stored in a place other than the approved bonded store room and not properly entered in statutory records attracted confiscation and penalty, and whether the quantum of fine and penalty required reduction.
Analysis: The goods were found within the factory but outside the approved bonded store room, constituting a violation of Rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal held that Rule 173Q(1)(b) covered failure to account for excisable goods and did not require proof of intent to evade duty. However, the absence of clandestine removal, the lack of space in the bonded store room, and the finding that the goods remained within the factory supported only limited penal action. The Tribunal also noted that confiscation was not called for in the circumstances, but a reduced penalty was justified.
Conclusion: The fine and penalty were warranted but deserved substantial reduction, and the assessee succeeded to that limited extent.
Final Conclusion: The order was modified by reducing the fine and penalty, while sustaining penal consequences for breach of excise storage and accountal requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are kept outside the approved bonded store room and are not properly accounted for, penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(b) is sustainable even without proof of mens rea, though the quantum may be reduced when clandestine removal is absent.