BIRLA YAMHA WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Birla Yamaha Works have filed this appeal against Order -in -Appeal No. 180 -CE/MRT -1/2004 dated 29 -3 -2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the confiscation of goods seized by the Central Excise officers and penalty imposed on them.

(2.) Shri B. L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture Portable Electric Generator Sets, Multi -purpose Engines and parts/components/spare parts thereof; that the Central Excise Officers visited their premises on 14 -9 -97 and seized 410 numbers of components of Gen sets/ multi -purpose engines as unaccounted; that Officers again visited their factory premises on 18 -9 -97 and seized 8347 numbers of Components and sub -assemblies as the same were also not accounted for in the RG -1 Register; that the seized goods have been confiscated for contravention of the provisions of Rules 53 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine and a penalty has also been imposed on the Appellants. The learned Advocate submitted that 8347 pieces of castings seized on 18 -9 -97 were not finished goods as still the processes like chemical, washing drying, testing and inspection were to be carried out; that these pieces were lying in washing area; that as these castings had not reached the RG -1 stage, the same were not entered in the said Register; that 358 pieces out of 410 pieces were rotor and stator assemblies which have to be put together to get the Generator Assembly; that since these assemblies were not put together and were lying separately, these were not finished goods; that remaining 52 generator assemblies, found in the shop floor, were returned back by the Quality Control Department for rechecking and since these were not found to be O.K., these were also not entered in RG -1 Register. In this regard he referred to the statement of Shri A. K. Dabral, Manager Excise and Warehouse, who deposed that goods seized on 18 -9 -97 were lying in washing machine area for the purpose of washing.

(3.) Countering the arguments, Shri P. M. Rao, learned D. R. reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order and emphasized that the Rules provide for accountal of finished as well as semi -finished goods in RG -1 to prevent the clandestine removal of the goods. The learned Advocate mentioned in reply that Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules is not applicable for the purpose of entering the semi -finished goods in RG -1 as the said Rule is applicable only in the case of classification.