D.P. BANSAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are a registered dealer for issuing invoices for duty -paid goods purchased by them under the invoices issued either by the manufacturer or by other dealers. The Central Excise officers on 10/11 -5 -1996 verified the stock of various goods in their registered premises and found the excess stock of 112.14 MT of M.S. Rounds and M.S. Angle and Joist, which was seized for violation of Rule 57GG of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The officers also found shortages in the stock of some other goods. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for recovery of central excise duty of Rs. 1,48/435.86 on 114.562 MT of M.S. Channels, M.S. Bars, M.S. Flats and M.S. Plates found short and for confiscation of the excess stock besides imposition of penalty. The Dy. Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice holding the excess stock liable for confiscation and ordering a fine of Rs. 5 Lakhs in lieu of confiscation and appropriated Rs. 10,000/ - from the security furnished for provisional release of goods to recover this amount. He also demanded central excise duty of Rs. 1,48,436/ - on shortage of 114.56 MT of M.S. Channels, M.S. Bars, M.S. Flats and MS Plates. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - on the appellants. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the liability of confiscation of the seized goods but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/ - and reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 5,000/ -. He dropped the demand of Rs. 1,48,435.86.

(2.) In their appeal, the appellants have pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rectified the order of the adjudicating authority who ordered confiscation, of the goods, which was not subject matter of the appeal and has exercised the powers of adjudication to uphold the deficient order of adjudicating authority. In para 9.6 of his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has adjudicated that there is no manifest violation of Rule 57GG but in para 9.7 he held that there is violation of Rule 57GG. When there is no manifest violation of Rule 57GG there is no question of confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. In para 9.14, he reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/ - and penalty to Rs. 5,000/ -. However, in para -10(ii), penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - is reduced to Rs. 10,000/ -. This is in variance to para 9.14 where the penalty has been reduced to Rs. 5,000/ -. Therefore, they prayed that order of confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/ - penalty may also be vacated. Under their letter dated 5 -10 -2004, the appellants requested for deciding the appeal on merits.

(3.) Shri V. Valte, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that the appellants are a registered dealer and they are required to follow the obligations placed on them under Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. According to Rule 57GG(3), the registered person is liable to maintain RG -23D register at the end of day of receipt and issue of excisable goods correctly in the manner required under Central Excise -Rules: Since the appellants were not keeping the correct records of the goods received and issued by them, the penalty was correctly imposed on the appellants. The goods which were found unaccounted for were also correctly held to be liable for confiscation. Since the seized goods were released provisionally under bond, redemption fine was correctly imposed in view of ratio of Supreme Court decision in case of Weston Components Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi [2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.)]. He agreed that penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000/ - as in para 9.14 but wrongly typed in para 10(ii).