Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Goenka Veneers Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... on 29 April, 2003
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 16/12/1995, the Preventive Officers of Central Excise Nagpur visited the factory premises of the appellants herein who commenced manufacture of different varieties of plywood and flush doors in March 1995 and found stock of excisable goods in excess of the recorded balance in statutory records. The excess stock being found to be offending goods and liable to confiscation, they were seized. The statement of the General Manager of the appellants' company was recorded on the same date, wherein he admitted the guilt and requested for lenient view on the ground that appellant was a new suit, which was not fully conversant with the Central Excise law. The statement of the Director of the appellant's company was recorded on 03/01/96 in which he stated that the goods seized were semi finished goods and had not reached the stage of entry in the RG-1 register. Regarding clandestine removal of 41 pieces of plywood on 21/07/95, he stated that they did not issue the invoice in the name of Swati Laminates, Nagpur for 50 pieces of plywood, that general gate pass was prepared by the clerk before the loading the plywood in the truck and in the meantime, a telephone call was received from Swati Laminates asking them to despatch the material as shown in the invoice No. 19 dated 21/07/95 for 50 pieces against the general gate pass for 41 pieces. He therefore submitted that there was no clandestine clearance of any plywood and that 4 pieces of plywood which had been shown as issued, were given as samples. A show cause notice dated 01/05/96 was issued to the appellants proposing confiscation of seized goods, proposing duty demand of Rs. 1540/- for clandestine removal of 45 pieces of plywood and proposing penal action. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, who hold that seized goods were liable to confiscation but due to non availability of the goods for confiscation, he appropriated the bank guarantee for Rs. 2,52,000/- executed by the appellants at the time of provisional release of the goods, in lieu of confiscation. He confirmed the duty demand of 45 pieces of plywood and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the appellants. Hence, this appeal.
2. We have heard both sides. The explanation of the appellants that the excess goods were not in finished condition, but were semi finished goods requiring further processes such as side trimming, sanding and hand finishing and, therefore, were not liable to confiscation, is tenable, in view of the Director's statement and the prescribed RG-1, stage for plywood which is finished plywood ready to be taken to the store room without any further processing. We therefore, hold that the seized goods were not liable to confiscation. Regarding clandestine removal of 45 pieces of plywood, we accept the explanation of the appellants that 41 pieces were covered by excise gate pass No. 1 dated 21/07/95 and that 4 pieces of plywood had been issued as samples. We, therefore, set aside the duty demand of Rs. 1540/-. As a consequence to our above finding penalty is also set aside.
3. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.