CCE, BHOPAL Vs. CHETAN INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by Commissioner Central Excise against the Order in Appeal No. 721 -CE/BPL/2000 dt. 9 -5 -2000 passed by the commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal.

(2.) Shri S.C.Pushkarna, Ld. DR, submitted that on 22 -4 -98 when the Central Excise Officers visited the factory Premises of M/s Chetan Industries they found 317 Coolers and Eight Air Conditioners in excess of the balance shown in RG -1 Register; that the Assistant Commissioner, under the Adjudication Order No. 47/99 dt. 21 -5 -99, confiscated the seized goods ( except 2 Air Conditioners) found in excess and released them on payment of redemption fine and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/ -; that Commissioner (Appeals) however, set aside the Adjudication Order holding that there was nothing on record to indicate that the goods were about to be removed from the factory, relying upon the decision in the case of Balls and Clypebs 1997(92) ELT 496. He, further, submitted that it is the primary duty of an assessee to fullfil the provisions of the Central Excise Rules; that as per Rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules, a manufacturer has to maintain a stock account in which daily entries have to be made regarding goods manufactured and removed; that as the goods have not been entered in the statutory registers they are liable for confiscation; that the Air Coolers even without bottom pads were completely manufactured as the bottom pads were to be used after packing the coolers in cartons. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Mumal Marbles Ltd. Vs. CCE 1996 (85) ELT 289 (T). In respect of Six Air Conditioners, the Ld. DR, submitted that those goods were in packed condition and there were no test records available and as these were not entered in RG -1 Register, the same are liable for confiscation.

(3.) Opposing the appeal, Shri R. Katiar, Ld. Advocate, submitted, that without bottom pads the coolers were not marketable and they had not attained the stage of entering them into RG -1 Register. He relied upon the decision in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE 1995 (76) ELT 241. In respect of Air Conditioners, he submitted that these were received after testing only on 22 -4 -98 and would have been entered in RG -1 Register after close of the day; that the private records like testing registers and contractor's account were found correctly written and as such no confiscation was warranted. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Pooja Forge Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE 1996 (84) ELT 37(T) and Hindustan General Industries Vs. CCE 1997 (96) ELT 382.