Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Paithan Silk Mills vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 31 October, 2005
ORDER Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. The appellant is a processor of man-made fabrics falling under Chapter Heading 5409. The officers of Central Excise searched the premises of the appellant and seized 1,53,547 L.mtrs. packed in 58 bales and those in loose condition which were alleged to have been not accounted for in folding register or in RG 1. Shri B.H. Patil, one of the employees of the factory, in his statement dated 13-9-1995, admitted that the fabrics seized from the finishing room were not accounted in any statutory register. In his further statement dated 26-9-1995, he admitted that the fabrics seized on 13-9-1995 inter alia contained 68 bales of which 42 bales were in fully packed condition and 26 nos, needed to be scrapped only were lying in the factory premises and some quantity was lying in dying section. This statement appears to given complete account of all fabrics alleged to have not been accounted.
2. Heard both sides.
3. From the records it appears that the grievance of the Revenue is that the processed fabrics have not been accounted. The fact that they are lying in different sections of the mill is also not in dispute. The appellants have been contending that they were not sure that at what stage the goods (processed fabrics) should be entered in RG1. It is their contention that the department had seized the fabrics for a small technical breach of the Rules if any and not for a major contravention of the Rules. In those circumstances whether confiscation of goods is warranted has to be carefully considered. This appears to be at best a case where accounts have not been made up-to-date. The appellants contend that the fully packed (baled) fabrics would have been entered in RG1 but for the visit of the officers and the search operations. They also plead that they requested the officers to complete the enquiries but have not been allowed to do so.
4. Having regard to all these facts, we are of the view that no contravention or any major irregularity had taken place warranting confiscation of goods. We hold that at best what appeared to have happened is a minor lapse. Order of confiscation is set aside and so is the penalty.
5. Appeal is allowed.