CCE Vs. GALAXY INDO FAB LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this appeal filed by the Revenue are, in brief, as under:

(2.) HEARD both the sides.

(3.) WHAT is punishable under Rule 173Q(1)(b) is non -accountal of the finished goods in the RG -I Register and if such non -accountal of the finished goods was there, to the extent the finished goods were unaccounted, the same would be liable for confiscation and the Respondent would be liable for penalty. We find that at the time of officer s visit to the Respondent s factory, the stock of PV Shirting in the RG -1 Register was shown as 84316 Sq. mtrs. and the entire production of PV Shirting had been shown on 17.08.98, which is impossible more so when the production slips pertaining to the production of PV Shirting on 17.08.1998 totalled only up to 4316 sq. mtrs. from which it is clear that this was the actual production of 17.08.98, which had originally been recorded in the RG -I Register and immediately after the officers visit, the same was hurriedly changed to 84316 . Shri Deepak Srivastava, Excise Clerk in his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Act has clearly stated that the figure 8 was added before the figure 4316 immediately after the officers visit to the Respondent s factory and this was done on the instruction of Shri M.P. Agarwal, Managing Director of the Respondent company who promised to send the production s slips to justify that much production on 17.08.98. Though Shri Agarwal denies having given any such instruction, we are of the view that statement of Shri Deepak Srivastava in this regard is a true statement. Even if the Commissioner (Appeals) s findings that the production of 47403 sq. mtrs. of PV Shirting wrapped in polythene is not to be treated as finished goods is accepted, there was unaccounted production to the tune of 8000/ -sq.mtrs., as against the stock of 84316 sq. mtrs of PV Shirting, the stock of PV Shirtings actually recorded in the RG -I Register was only 4316. We, therefore, hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) s findings that there was no excess stock in RG -I Register and there was no contravention of the Rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not correct and the Commissioner (Appeals) s order setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty on this count is not sustainable. The same is set aside and in this regard, the order of the original adjudicating authority regarding confiscation of the goods is restored. The Revenue s appeal is accordingly allowed.