Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Lamicoat International Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce on 3 December, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(127)ECC89, 2008(153)ECR89(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice President
1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the common impugned order whereby the inputs as well as finished goods found in excess were confiscated and ordered to be released on payment of redemption fine. Penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- was imposed and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- was imposed on the Manager.
2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Printed Laminated Polyester film and were availing benefit of cenvat scheme. The contention of appellant in respect of the confiscation of inputs is that appellants received the inputs but no duty paying documents were received by them, therefore, the same were not entered in the RG23-A Part I. The Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Oceanic Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd had held that the raw material is not liable for confiscation under Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules. The present provision of Rule 25 are parallel to the provisions of erstwhile Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules.
3. In respect of confiscation of finished goods, the contention is that there statutory records wee maintained upto date. However, on 13.2.82 as their concerned employee was on leave, therefore, he could not attend his duty. The contention is that there is no attempt on the part of the appellant to clear the goods without payment of duty.
4. In respect of the penalty on Manager, there is no finding of adjudicating authority. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the manager under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules is not sustainable.
5. The contention of revenue is that the appellants are working under the Cenvat Scheme, therefore, they are duty bound to maintain the record properly. The revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kirloskar Bros v. Union of India reported in 1998 (34) ELT 30 whereby the Hon'ble High Court held that unaccounted goods found in the factory are liable for confiscation.
6. I find that in this case, the raw material as well as finished goods was confiscated. The excess raw material was there as the appellant had not received the duty paying documents, therefore, the same are not entered in the RG 23 Part I. Further, I find that the Tribunal in the case of Oceanic Cooling Towers Pvt Ltd supra held that raw material are not liable for confiscation under Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules. In view of the above decision, the confiscation of inputs is not sustainable and hence set aside.
7. In respect of the finished goods found in excess, I find that the same are not entered in the statutory record, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kirloskar Bros supra are liable for confiscation. The value of the goods was Rs. 13,36,988/- and duty involved on this is Rs. 2,13,918/-. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is reduced to Rs. 1,50,000/- and penalty is reduced to Rs. 75,000/-. Otherwise, the impugned order in this regard is upheld.
8. In respect of the penalty on the Manager, I find that there is no finding in the adjudication order regarding commission or omission on the part of Manager with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, penalty on the manger is set aside. The appeals are disposed of as indicated above.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court).