Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Atlas Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 20 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1995(75)ELT719(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 2/MP/85 [F. No. V(33B)/15-5/OA/83], dated 27-2-1985 of Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Baroda.
2. It is needless to record the detailed facts of the case. Though there were a number of allegations, most of the allegations were dropped by the Collector himself and the goods were ordered release. However, according to the findings of the Collector the appellants are required to pay duty on 614.400 kgs of Electric wires and cables of different varieties manufactured by them, which are alleged to have been removed from the BSR and also pay duty on 21.875 kgs of electric wires and cables valued at Rs. 2146.16 removed by them as free samples without payment of duty leviable on them. The Collector has also ordered confiscation of 22 reels weighing 135.285 kgs valued at Rs. 8845.00 but allowed its redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 2500/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2500/- on the appellants.
3. Shri S.N. Sejpal, the Ld Advocate pleads that he is not contesting the duty demand and they have already paid the duty amount. This non payment is only on account of the confusion in maintenance of accounts by the staff. Expert staff could not be obtained, since the factory is located in backward area and they have already paid the duty arising on account of errors in accounting. Even with regard to non accountal of the goods, they have satisfactorily explained the position before the Collector, who have dropped the proceedings in most of the cases. However with regard to 22 reels, it is only on account of Department's insistence that EB 4 register is separately maintained, this confusion has arisen. Combined RG-1 and EB 4 registers were being maintained correctly. On accounts of this, only non-accountal leading to confiscation has arisen and no mala fide can be attributed to them. He therefore pleads that the penalty may be remitted, since it would be a stigma on their otherwise bone fide nature.
4. After hearing both the sides, and perusing of the order, I find that the duty demand is mainly on account of certain accounting error and there is no allegation of clandestine removal. Moreover, the Collector has also observed that the goods not allegedly accounted for have been properly explained and only with regard to 22 reels found in excess, for which proper explanations are not forthcoming. In view of this I would deem it proper to remit the penalty but administer a warning to the appellants for being careful with regard to maintenance of the accounts of the excisable goods. As regards the goods found in excess, the order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine do not call for any interference. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Consequential relief, if any, to follow.