COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned Order -in -Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the confiscation and imposition of the redemption fine, in respect of the seized goods after reversing the order -in -original. He has also reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000/ - under Rule 226, on the respondents.

(2.) The learned SDR has contended that, since the goods were not entered in the RG -1 Register by the respondents and were found lying in the factory premises at the time of visit of the Officers on 25 -10 -1997, these were liable to be confiscated. He has also placed reliance on the ratio of the law laid down in the case of (1) Blue Blends (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad, [2004 (163) E.L.T. 238] (2) LML Ltd. v. CCE, [1992 (61) E.L.T. 249 (All)] and (3) Supreme Vinyl Films Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, [2003 (155) E.L.T. 304 (T)].

(3.) I have heard both sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that the goods found excess were manufactured by the respondents during the period 16 -10 -1997 to 22 -10 -1997. But these goods were still lying in the testing and packing area within the factory of the respondents. These were not lying in the finished room. Besides these goods, no discrepancy in the record regarding the finished goods or even the raw material was found by the officers. At the spot, when the Panchnama was prepared, the representative of the respondents categorically stated that these goods had not reached the finished stage for entering in the RG -1 Register and these were kept in the inspection/testing and packing area. The testing of the goods in order to ascertain if the quality manufactured was up to the mark or not, was yet to be carried out. There is nothing on the record also to suggest if any vehicle was parked within the factory of the respondents for the removal of those goods which was produced only few days prior to the visit of the Central Excise Officers. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case brought on record, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), in my view, has rightly taken the view that the goods had not reached the finishing stage and as such non -entry of the same in the RG -1 Register did not warrant the confiscation of the same. The Trade Notice relied upon by the Revenue/appellant speaks of entry of the finished goods lying in the finishing room in packed or loose condition in the RG -1 Register, not of the goods which had not reached the finished stage. The ratio of the law laid down in the above referred cases by the learned SDR, is not attracted to the facts of the present case in view of the facts and circumstances, detailed above.