Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Asp Sealing Products Ltd. on 6 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(118)ECC198, 2007ECR198(TRI.-DELHI), 2008(221)ELT62(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice President
1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order where confiscation of unaccounted goods was set aside.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that 48 items were found in the factory in fully packed and ready to dispatch condition. The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of unaccounted goods under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. On appeal filed by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the revenue has not proved the charge of clandestine removal regarding goods found in finishing room. However, confirmed the finding that the goods in question arc not entered in the RG I record and reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The contention of revenue is that as per the proviso to Rule 25 of Central excise Rules, the manufacturer who does not account for excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored, then such goods are liable for confiscation. The revenue also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kirloskar Brothers reported in 2000 (34) ELT 30. The contention is that Hon'ble High Court held that the provisions of Rule 173-Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules held that unaccounted goods found in the factory are liable for confiscation.
4. The contention of respondents is that goods were still in the factory and as per the practice, finished goods are to be entered in the RGI record after inspection.
5. I find that the respondents admitted the fact that goods in question are not entered in RGI record. The appellant's only plea is that these are pending for inspection. Regarding the practice of inspection, there is no evidence produced by the respondents. I find that provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise are parallel to provisions of Rule 173-Q of Central Excise and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kirloskar Bros (supra) held that unaccounted goods found in the factory are liable for confiscation. The impugned order whereby the confiscation of goods was set aside, is not sustainable and hence set aside and the order regarding confiscation of goods passed by the adjudicating authority is restored. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/- will meet the ends of justice and I find no reason to enhance the penalty imposed in the impugned order. The appeal is allowed as indicated above.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court)