KRISTAN ENGG. P. LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Kristan Engg. P. Ltd. have filed this appeal against the Additional Collector's order confiscating their goods under seizure with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 30,000/ - besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/ -. Shri S.D. Gaur, ld. Consultant, submitted that the Central Excise Officers visited the appellants' factory premises and seized one milk chiller, which was described by the department as plate heat exchanger, S.S. Pipes and S.S. Conveyor as these were not entered in the R.G. 1 register. They also seized the S.S. Top Table, parts of inline filters, decoration plant and Agitator with motor, as no classification list for these goods had been filed by the assessees. The ld. Consultant, further, submitted that milk chiller and plate heat exchanger are one and the same thing and they had already entered the same in their R.G. 1 and as such it is not liable to confiscation. In respect of other two goods, namely, S.S. Pipes and S.S. Conveyor, he submitted that these were scrap items and could have been entered into the R.G. 1 before their clearance; that in any case there are various decisions of the Tribunal according to which the goods lying in the factory cannot be seized. In respect of remaining 4 items, he mentioned that all these items were already entered in the R.G. 1 register and non -filing of classification list does not make them liable to confiscation as the classification list is to be filed before their removal from the factory. It is, therefore, submitted that none of the goods were liable to confiscation and up penalty is imposable on them.

(2.) SHRI A.K. Jain, ld. J.D.R. countered the submissions by mentioning that the Additional Collector in the adjudication order has clearly distinguished between the milk chiller and the heat exchanger and as heat exchanger found in the factory was not entered in the R.G. 1, it is liable for confiscation. In respect of S.S. Pipes and S.S. Conveyor, the appellants have themselves admitted that these were not entered into the R.G. 1 register. Referring to Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, he mentioned that classification list is required to be filed in respect of the goods intended to be removed from the factory, which has not been filed. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find substantial force in the submission of the ld. Consultant that what they were manufacturing, according to them, was milk chiller and if the department describes it as heat exchanger, the fact still remains that it was entered in the R.G. 1 register. As the department has not brought any evidence on record to show that the milk chiller, which was entered in the R.G. 1 register, has been cleared and the fact that one milk chiller or heat exchanger was found in the factory, the benefit has to go to the appellants and we hold that it is not liable for confiscation. The other two goods, which were not entered into the R.G. 1 register, were only scrap material, which as per law, should have been entered into R.G. 1 register and to that extent, the appellants have contravened the provisions of Central Excise Rules. As the valuation of these goods is only Rs. 1,500/ -, the amount of penalty and redemption fine has to be proportionate to their value. In respect of remaining 4 items, we hold that confiscation is not warranted as the goods have been duly accounted for in the R.G. 1 register and the same were available in the factory premises. A classification list can be filed before the removal of the goods. In view of these facts and circumstances, we reduce the amount of redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 20/ - and Rs. 100/ - respectively. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.