TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly registered with the Central Excise in adjacent premises. They made plastic packing materials namely Crates. Another factory namely M/s. Navneet Publications was situated in the adjoining plot on the other side. This factory was closed since long with only a watchman on duty. The officers of Central Excise located 70,000 plastic crates marked with the word 'Coca-Cola' stored in the said factory. The watchman informed the officers that the crates were manufactured by M/s. PMPL and was stored in their premises. From the second unit of PMPL 87,500 plastic crates were seized. Another quantity of 4,215 crates was seized from a truck. Although the driver carried a Central Excise invoice covering the transit, which indicated duty being debited i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s claimed that the Debit Entry would have been made in the account at the end of the day's business and therefore it could not be said that the goods seized from the truck had been cleared without payment of duty. It was claimed that the goods were duly accounted in the RG-I Register and therefore clearly there was intention on their part to clear the goods clandestinely. 5. Shri Arvind Cheddha claimed that he was situated in Mumbai and was not looking after the day to day work of the factory. He had directed Shri Lalit Cheddha, General Manager, to ensure that the goods should be protected against fire by following all legal requirements. Therefore he was not liable for penalty. 6. Shri Lalit Cheddha stated that in view of the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d been passed by the Commissioner for confirmation of duty under Section 11A and therefore penalty under Section 11AC could be imposed. In view of the case law cited penalty under Rule 173Q was also not warranted. As regards penalty on Arvind Cheddha, Director of PMPL he reiterated that he was not involved in the day to day business of the factory and that he was based in Mumbai and not at the factory. As regards Shri Lalit Cheddha, General Manager of PMPL, his claim was that since he was intending to obtain permission from the officers, no penalty was warranted. 11. B.B. Sarkar claimed that orders of confiscation of the penalty were justified. 12. We have carefully considered the submissions. 13. The levy of Central Excis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be only under the cover of prescribed documents of removal. Where the place of storage outside the factory was not approved, any removals made from such licenced premises to such outside storage would amount to contravention of two Rules i.e. 9(1) and 52A. 16. The proceedings do not show whether the goods so stored were accounted in the RG-I Register. The assessee put forth strongly that all the goods were accounted for. The Commissioner in para 30 of his Order does not bring out the basis for his belief that the goods were not so recorded. Curiously the assessees also have placed on record all those Orders of the Tribunal where the offence was of non-accountal of goods in the RG-I Register. 17. The lack of accounting in RG-I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inarily the fine in such cases would be equal to the profit margin of the importer or at least the the premium commanded by the particular licence required for import of such goods. No such parameters however are available under the Central Excise Act or Rules. Even under the Customs Act, the authorities and the Courts have made a distinction thus a person who imports goods for manufacture or for his use, should invite a much lower quantum of fine. 21. In the case of Central Excise when the goods are confiscated the fine necessarily has to be of low proportion. Then also the severity of the offence and the circumstances which led to the seizure of the goods would of paramount importance. 22. In the present proceedings the assess....