Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S. Mamta Silk Mills (P) Ltd. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 9 March, 2001
ORDER
1. These two applications relate to two appeals filed against the same common order. They therefore taken up together for orders.
2. When the cases were called out the applicants was not present. On the last occasion also the appellants were absent and unrepresented. On examination of the issue I find them to be small and capable of being decided on the basis of law given by the Tribunal. I therefore proceed to decide the two appeals.
3. From the registered premises of M/s Mamata Silk Mills Ltd. manmade fabrics in finished condition were seized since they were not accounted for in the statutory records. Shri M.M. Singhvi, the Director of the mills in his statement admitted that he was incharge of the day to day affairs. He also confessed that the fabrics were not recorded in the register since they had intended to remove the fabrics without payment of duty. These goods were confiscated but were allowed redemption on payment of fine and the guarantee bond was ordered to be proceeded upon. The duty on the seized goods was confirmed and penalty of equivalent amount was imposed upon the mills. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed upon Shri Singhvi, Director of the mills.
4. In his order in appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the lower orders. He reduced the fine to Rs. 1 lakhs. He reduced the penalty on the mills Rs. 2 lakhs and also reduced the penalty on Singhvi to rs. 15,000/-. These two appeals are against this order.
5. In both the appeals the earlier judgements have been relied upon where the Tribunal had ruled that in the absence of any preparation to clandestinely remove the goods confiscation was not warranted merely because the goods were not recorded in the RG1 register. However, the Tribunal themselves have departed from this and have held that in the absence of any preparations also the liability to confiscation would stand. Some of judgements are listed below: H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE 1999 (111) ELT 512; CCE Vs. Metal Laminates Pvt. Ltd. 1999 (105) ELT 408; and Canara Wood & Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 696. In the present case there is an admission by the Managing Director as to the intention of illegal removal and therefore the earlier order cited are also no assistance to the appellants.
6. In view of the specific admission made by Shri Singhvi and also noting the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the quantum of penalty and fine I find no scope for leniency. The appeal by Mahendrasing F Singhvi is dismissed. At the same time I find that in view of the clear admission there was no case for levy of very substantial penalty on the company. Penalty on the Company is reduced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 50,000/-. Subject to this modification the appeal is dismissed.
7. Stay applications also stand disposed off.