NITIN SPINNERS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby unaccounted goods were ordered to be confiscated and were allowed to be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and penalty of Rs. 5000/ -was imposed. The contention of the appellant is that appellant is the 100% EOU and they are not required to maintain RG -I register. The appellant relied upon the following judgments of the Tribunal:

(3.) THE contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal in these cases after relying upon the Board Circular, dated 20 -5 -96 held that 100% EOU not required maintaining RG -I register. The Revenue pointed out the decisions were under old rules, now, Central Excise Rules (2) 2001 are in operation and in these rules there were no parallel rules to Rule 100(h) of old rules. The contention is that Rule 100(h) provides special procedure for 100% EOU with no standing the provisions of other rules. In the present rules as per Rule 17, the 100% EOU to maintain the account of goods in the form specified by notification by the Board. At this point learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in spite of this rule no form is prescribed by the Board. As no statutory form has been prescribed for maintaining the record of production, therefore, if the goods are not accounted for, are not liable for confiscation. On merit, the contention of the appellant is that there was excess 6322.92 KG of different kind of Cotton Yard was found. The contention is that this quantity is days, production as the Revenue Officer visited the Unit in the afternoon and taken into consideration the opening balance at 7AM of the same day. Therefore, appellants are maintaining record of their production and this quantity is to be entered in the record at the close of the day. Therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation on account of non -maintainable.