JASCH INDUS. LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the appeal filed by an assessee (appellants) as well as the Cross -Objections submitted by the Revenue (respondent) against the common impugned Order -in -Appeal. The appellants have challenged the imposition of penalty on them, whereas the Revenue has questioned the correctness of the impugned order regarding setting aside of the confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of redemption fine in respect thereof by the Commissioner (Appeals).

(2.) The facts are not much in dispute. On 23.9.1999, the Central Excise Officers intercepted the tempo on Bahalgarh Road, Sonepat, which was loaded with the goods 'Coated Fabrics' manufactured by the appellants. The driver of the tempo, no doubt, produced the invoices in respect of those goods, but on checking of the record to the appellants after the tempo was brought back to their factory premises, it revealed that they had neither debited the duty leviable on those goods nor entered in the RG -23 Part -II register or in the PLA account, and this fact was admitted by Shri S.B. Kiran, authorized signatory of the appellants.

(3.) Thereafter, on carrying out physical verification of the finished goods lying in the factory premises, 3172 finished coated fabric rolls in a packed condition were found. These rolls contained 79300 mtrs. fabric in all, while in the RG -1 Register, the balance recorded was 73297.5 mtrs. The excess stock of 6002.50 mtrs. was seized through a Panchnama, at the spot, which was prepared in the presence of Shri S.K. Sharma, Company Secretary and Shri S.B. Kiran, authorized signatory of the appellants, and whose statements were also recorded separately, and out of whom, Shri S.K. Sharma, admitted the non -accountal of the excess goods. The adjudicating authority through the Order -in -Original, on adjudication of the show cause notice, ordered the confiscation of the goods found in tempo as well as in the factory premises as unaccounted and Imposed redemption fine, besides imposing personal penalty on the appellants, as detailed therein. That authority also ordered the confiscation of the tempo. But the learned Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order has set aside the confiscation of the goods and redemption fine. He has only upheld the penalty.