TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1995 seized the stock of 1648 kgs. wool tops valued at Rs. 2,96,640/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 34,113.60 which was found in excess of recorded stock as per RG 1 Register from the premises of the appellants. They were served with a show cause notice which was contested by them by alleging that the production was recorded on approximation and not on actual weighment of the goods and the excess stock went on accumulating over a period of time and gained moisture resulting in excess weight. They also averred that the ratio of the raw wool is maintained and is entered in the raw material register and there was no mala fide intention on their part to remove the goods clandestinely. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, did not agree wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any of the provisions of the Rules with intent to evade the payment of duty, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and shall also be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the excisable goods in respect of which contravention has been committed. The recovery of excess stock of 1648 kgs. of wool tops from the finished room of the factory premises of the appellants has not been disputed before me by the Counsel. The Counsel has also failed to offer any plausible explanation as to how that much stock was lying excess in the finished room with the appellants. His simple version that this was only due to the fact that the staff kept by the appellants was not much trained and failed to maintain the proper accounts and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as they failed to account for the excisable goods found excess in their factory premises. In this view I am also fortified by the law laid down by the Tribunal in Autolite (India) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 397. In that case, the excess stock on surprise check by the Excise Officers was found and it was ruled that the stock was liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q as the assessee failed to account for the same. To the same effect is the law laid down by the Tribunal in another case of C.C.E, Madras. v. Ultra Marine & Pigments Ltd. reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 413 (T). In that case also the assessee failed to account for the excisable finished goods and to make entry in the prescribed registers and it was ruled by....