BERYL DRUGS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of all the above captioned three appeals; one filed by the assessee and the two filed by the Department.

(2.) The facts are not much in dispute. The factory premises of the assessee were visited by the Officers of the Central Excise on 7.10.1998 and certain invoices bearing No. 236 to 244 were found in their record through which the goods were removed involving Central Excise Duty of Rs. 67,683.15. On scrutiny of more records, it also revealed that they had removed the samples and also the goods against the private challans involving in all Central Excise Duty of Rs. 1,32,405 and this duty amount also included the duty payable on the goods found short in the stock. Certain other goods were also found unaccounted for in the statutory records and those were also seized. Similarly, some goods which were alleged to be defective were found lying in the factory premises unaccounted and those were also seized. The appellants, however, made the deposit of the entire duty amount, but still they were served with a show cause notice vide which the seized goods were proposed to the confiscated and penalty under Section 11 -AC of the Act as well as Rule 173 -Q of the Rules was also proposed to be imposed on them in that notice. The appellants contested the notice and their liability to pay the penalty. They also contested the seizure and the confiscation of the unaccounted goods by alleging that certain goods were, in fact, received being defective and at the time of their earlier clearance these were already accounted for in the record. But the adjudicating authority had not accepted the version of the appellants and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,32,405 with equal amount of penalty under Section 11 -AC and also the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173 -Q of the Rules. The adjudicating authority further ordered the confiscation of the goods with option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5,000 as well as Rs. 10,000 which were not accounted for in the record. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the Director of the assessee company under Rule 209 -A.

(3.) On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the above -said order of the adjudicating authority and dropped the penalty under Section 11 -AC and also under Rule 209 -A on the Director of the assessee company. He had also set aside the redemption fines as imposed by the adjudicating authority in respect of the goods allegedly found excess and unaccounted in the factory premises.