TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the excisable goods falling in Chapter 39 and 48. During the stock checking carried out by the department on 03/04.02.2011, the officers found that there was mismatch of the raw materials and finished goods and excess quantity of finished goods was found lying in the factory premises unrecorded in the statutory records. The central excise officers placed the same under seizer use and subsequently released them provisionally on execution of B11 bond backed by a bank guarantee. After investigating and recording the statements of the works manager and authorized signatory of the main appellant, show cause was issued proposing to confiscate the excess found stock of the finished goods and also to impose penalty on the main appellant as wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal in the case of Bhilai Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2000 (125) ELT 781 (Tribunal), Prince Multiplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2012 (276) ELT 48 (Guj.), CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Sadashiv Ispat Ltd. - 2010 (255) ELT 349 (P & H) and CCE, Rajkot Vs. Amrut Ceramics - 2007 (209) ELT 390 (Tri. - Ahmd.) for the proposition that non-entry of goods in RG-1 Register will not amount to unaccountle of goods unless it is supported by past conduct of assessee in removal of the goods clandestinely. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand would submit that the explanation given by the Ld. Counsel today before the bench was not given to the authorities when they visited and found the mismatch. It is also his submission that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed goods which remain unaccounted were liable for confiscation under provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and whether penalties are imposable on the appellant. 8. At the outset, I may record that on similar issue, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Prince Multiplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) had an occasion to interpret the provisions of Rule 173(2) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 which were pari-materia to the provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Their Lordships has laid down the law in paragraph no.25 of their judgment which I may gainfully reproduce: 25. As noticed earlier, in the present case, thou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der. 9. Yet another case, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Sadashiv Ispat Ltd. (supra) have also laid down the law and relevant paragraph nos.07 to 12 are reproduced as under: 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no evidence has been produced by the Revenue that the respondent had cleared the goods unaccounted and the goods were kept for clandestine clearance. In the present case, even if the goods had not been entered in the RG-1 register, yet the same cannot lead to the conclusion that the goods were meant for clandestine removal. Both the Commiss....