2009 (8) TMI 603

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted stock verification. The said officers ascertained excess stock of 15.420 MT. of Steel Ingots involving central excise duty of Rs.36,475/-. Representative of the respondent-company failed to explain the reason for excess quantity. The original authority confiscated the excess quantity, and imposed redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- and penalty of Rs.10,000/- on respondent No. I and penalty of Es. 5,000/- on Shri Vinay Bansal, Director, respondent No. 2 herein. Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order insofar as confiscation and imposition of redemption fine on respondent No. I were set aside and penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. Penalty on respondent No. 2 also set aside. Hence, Revenue filed these appeals. 2. Learned D.R.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orted in 2007 (209) E.L.T. 390 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen from the show cause notice that the respondents contravened provisions of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 insofar as they have kept 15.420 M.T. of Steel Ingots unaccounted. Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides "Daily stock accounted", pari materia to Rule 53 of erstwhile Rules. In the case of Navkar Wires Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in appeal No. 3056/2004 Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent he has set aside the order of the adjudication order confiscating the goods seized in the factory premises under Rule 173Q(1) of the erstwhile Rules. The Tribunal observed that since contraventi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch circumstances the goods can be confiscated or not? I find that there are contrary decisions on both sides which have very nicely been summed up by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Precoated Steel v. CCE Pune - 2006 (203) E.LT. 506 (Tribunal). The sum and substance of these decisions is that mere non-entry in RG-1 register will not amount to non-accountal of the goods unless it is supported by past conduct of the asseasee in removing the goods or that the raw materials used in the manufacture of the finished goods have not been accounted for or the goods have not been shown to be under process in either statutory or private records, etc. None of these ingredients are available in these cases and the Revenue has not brought out any eviden....