Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Kanpur vs M/S. Trela Footwear Exports (P) Ltd on 2 May, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing:02.5.2013
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
authorities?
Excise Appeal No.E/3141/2005-EX (DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.274-CE/APPL./Knp/2005 dated2.6.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kanpur]
CCE, Kanpur Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Trela Footwear Exports (P) Ltd. ..Respondent
Appearance: Rep. by Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the appellants.
Rep. by Shri Jatin Singhal, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM:Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No.56303/2013 Dated:2.5.2013 Per Archana Wadhwa:
Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the confiscation of the excess found goods and has reduced penalty to Rs.20,000/- on the ground of non-maintenance of records.
2. As per facts on record, the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of footwear soles. Their factory was visited by the central excise officers on 24.07.2004, which conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, 33,160 pairs of soles of different varieties were found in excess as recorded in the statutory records. Shri Raghuraj Singh, Manager of the factory stated that a quantity of 23,752 pairs were rejected soles, which have been accumulated in the stock which has not attained marketability and as such, are not fit for entry in the RG-I Register.
3. Proceedings were imitated against the respondent by way of issue of show cause notice dated 12.1.2005 proposing confiscation of the excess found goods as also for imposition of penalty. The original adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.5 Lakh and also imposed penalty of Rs.2 Lakh.
4. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) by referring to various decisions of the Tribunal held that there was no evidence reflecting upon the assessees intention to clear the goods without payment of duty and as such, non-entry in the statutory records was more than technical and procedural lapse for which he imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue.
5. On going through the grounds of appeal, we find that the Revenue has not advanced any evidence on record to show that such non-entry of the goods in the statutory records was with an malafide intention to clear the same without payment of duty. Further, it is clear from the statement of the Manager that majority of the sole pairs were of rejected quality. There is no rebuttal to the above statement of the assessee. In this scenario, we are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon the Tribunals decision in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2000 (125) ELT 781 (Tribunal) and has rightly held that it is a case of mere non-entry in the RG-23 Part-I register. We find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member (Judicial) ( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1