M/S. Rajasthan Industrial Gases Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-I

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 203-204(RDN)/CE/JPR-I/2012 dated 13.12.2012 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Jaipur].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Rajasthan Industrial Gases Ltd. .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-I .Respondent

Appearance:

Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri A.K. Dhawan, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 25.02.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 50482/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for the imposition of redemption fine and penalty thereon.

2. The facts of the case are that during the course of inspection on 22.04.2010 around 11.30 AM the MS ingots (final product) weighing 7.611 MT was found excess as entered in their RG-1 register. The statement of Shri Rakesh Jain, Director of the appellant was recorded wherein he has stated that the difference may be due to weighment and size of the ingots and in reply to the Show Cause Notice they claimed that as there shift started at 8 AM and verification of stock was done at 11.30 AM, the production of 3.5 hours was not recorded in RG-1 register. Therefore, there is excess of 7.611 metric tonnes of MS Ingots. The Show Cause Notice was issued to confiscate the excess found stock under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and imposition of penalty therein. Matter was adjudicated. Excess goods were held liable for confiscation. Consequently, redemption fine of Rs.90,000/- was imposed and penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order appellant filed the appeal before Ld. Commissioner (A) to affirm the order of adjudication. Therefore appellant is before me.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the search was conducted at 11.30 AM on 22.04.2010 and the production of 3.5 hrs that is from 8 AM to 11.30 AM were not recorded in RG-1 register due to change in shift and that might be the only reason of excess of finished goods in their factory. There is no other evidence on record to say that these excess found goods were meant to clear clandestinely without payment of duty. In these circumstances, impugned order is to be set aside and appeal be allowed.

4. On the other hand Ld. AR submits that the Director of the appellant has himself admitted the excess of the stock and immediately paid the duty thereon. Therefore, the adjudicating authority as well as Ld. Commissioner (A) have rightly confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty on the appellant.

5. Heard the parties. Considered the submission.

6. In this case on physical verification, 7.611 Metric tonnes of MS Ingots were found in excess. The appellant paid duty thereon as goods are dutiable and which are required to be cleared on payment of duty. But it does not mean the appellant has admitted the guilt. Further, the claim of appellant is that production of 3.5 hrs was not required in RG-1 register. Therefore, there is excess stock of finished goods which have not been considered by both the lower authorities. If same would have been considered then the redemption fine and penalty were not imposable on the appellant. In these circumstances, I hold that goods are not required to be held liable for confiscation. Consequently, the confiscation of the impugned goods is set aside. In result redemption fine and penalty is not imposable on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise rules.

7. In these terms impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

E/56341/2013-EX(SM)