CCE Vs. ESS DEE TIN AND METAL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred by the department is directed against the Order -in -Appeal dated 22.1.2004 wherein the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the respondents by setting aside the confiscation of the seized goods, reduced the penalty to Rs. 2000/ - from Rs. 10,000/ -.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondents' factory was visited by the officers on 7.1.2002 and they found finished goods i.e. steel containers 1510 Nos. excess of the recorded balance. Show cause notice issued for confiscation of the said excess goods. On adjudication the said goods was confiscated but permitted to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/ - and penalty of Rs. 10,000/ - was imposed on the appellants. On appeal the appellate authority on merits of the case of the respondents set aside the confiscation and reduced the penalty. Hence this appeal.

(3.) HEARD both sides, perused the record. I find that the factory of the respondents was visited on 7.1.2003. The authorities found that RG -1 of the respondents recorded balance up to 6.1.2002. The appellate authority in his order -in -appeal had found and come to the conclusion which reads as under: I observe that the facts that production of 6.1.2002 was not entered in the RG1 register has also been admitted by the department in the Show Cause notice itself. Further this fact was also explained by Shri Manish Bansal, authorized signatory of the appellants, in his written statement tendered on the spot under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that the excess stock of 1510 tins was the production of 6.1.2002 and due to some personal problem be could not reach factory on time i.e. on 9.00 AM and he came to the factory on 1130 AM. The department has not brought any thing on record to counter the explanation given by the authorized signatory of the appellants.