TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (11) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Excise Officers in the respondents' factory and on verification conducted by them, 88.280 MTs. of galvanised steel strips were found in excess of the recorded balance in the RG 1 register. Apart from this, 81.455 MTs. of galvanised steel scrap was found to have been clandestinely removed by them, involving total duty of Rs. 48,873.00. Apart from this, small quantities of 600 kgs. of strips and 1500 kgs. of scrap were found loaded in the tractor and trolley, which were also confiscated by the original adjudicating authority giving an option to the respondents to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 365.00 and of Rs. 950.00 respectively. 3. On an appeal against the above order of the Additional Commissioner, the Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to enter the same in Column 15 of RG 1 register, which was not done by them. He, further, argues that reliance upon another order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, in respect of the same respondents releasing subsequently seized galvanized strips, by observing that RG 1 stage arises only after testing, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on the ground that the same was a subsequent Order and was in a different case. He also submits that the respondents have admitted the clandestine removal of 81.445 MTs. of scrap involving a duty amounting to Rs. 48,873.00 and have voluntarily deposited the same. However, the same was done by them after detection of duty evasion by the visiting officers and n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. There is no doubt that the RG 1 stage would reach only after the goods are completely manufactured and have passed the test. In the instant case, the same were seized from the shop floor when they were awaiting re-manufacture. In respect of fixation of redemption fine for the provisionally released goods, he refers to the Three Member Bench Decision of the Tribunal in the case of Grauer & Weil (India) v. C.C.E. reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 338 (T) which is to the effect that confiscation and redemption fine are not valid when the goods are already released provisionally against the bond and are not physically available for confiscation. 8. As regards the imposition of penalty, Shri Das submits that it has been held by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether any further investigations so as to test the veracity of the claim made by the respondents, were carried out by inspecting the seized goods. He has simply confiscated the strips by observing that they have not been entered in their RG 1 register. As such, I fully agree with the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no justifiable reason for confiscation of the excess found galvanised steel strips. In view of this finding, the further issue raised by the Revenue as to whether the redemption fine could be fixed or not when the goods already stood provisionally released to the respondents, is not of any importance and is left unanswered. 10. As regards the imposition of penalty upon the respondents under the ....