TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (6) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts visited the factory premises of the appellant and after verification it was found that the finished goods worth Rs. 19,24,135/- involving the excise duty of Rs. 3,17,481/- were found in excess of the entries in the RG 1 Register. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant alleging that appellants have contravened provision of Rule 53, 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the goods found in factory were unaccounted for in the RG 1 Register. It was also alleged in the Show Cause Notice that by the goods found unaccounted should not be confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and by the penalty should not be imposed. After adjudication the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Noida passed the order confiscating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reply to the Show Cause Notice but these were not considered by the adjudicating authority or the lower Appellate Authority. 4. He further submitted that even though as held by the Lower Authority the good were in fully finished condition the goods were lying in the factory and there was no evidence on record to prove that appellant had made any preparation for removal of the goods or the goods were removed by the appellant without payment of duty. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Southern Steel Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 402) (A.P.). He further submitted that ratio of judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court was followed by the Tribunal in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und fully finished form and lying in the factory unaccounted in the RG 1 Register. The appellants in reply to the Show Cause Notice took stand with the goods were not in fully finished condition but are yet to be reached at the RG 1 stage. Shri K.L. Sharma, Dy. Manager Account who was also authorised signatory for excise purposes did not give such explanation in the statement that the goods were yet to be reached the RG 1 Register at the time of dispatch only. The authority below also notice that the control penal were lying in the factory from the last two years without entering in the RG 1 Register. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the statement of the appellant that the goods were not in fully finished condition at the time of seizu....