Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - MumbaiNational Plastics (I) Ltd., Shri Paresh ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 December, 2003Equivalent citations: 2004(166)ELT488(TRI-MUMBAI)ORDER
 

  S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)1. On 13.07.1999 a show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing to confiscate goods stored outside bonded store room, though they were entered in Daily Stock Account RG1 and tallied with the physical stock. There was proposal to impose penalties on the appellants.2. a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II adjudicated upon the issues raised. He ordered as under -i) Confiscated seized goods valued at Rs. 5,03,39,601/-under Rule 226 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and ordered appropriation of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5 lakhs towards fine in lieu of confiscation.ii) Imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellant company.iii) Imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant Mr. Paresh Parekh, Director under Rule 209A.b) Grounds taken in appeal are -i) Confiscation of goods is not warranted since there was no contravention of provisions of Rule 226 as held.ii) IF at all there was any contravention it was of Rule 47 for which penalty could have been imposed under Rule 210. Confiscation is without the authority of law, since no confiscation on LC arrived at for violation of Rule 47.iii) SCN did not invoke provisions of Rule 210.iv) Penalty imposed under Rule 226 is not maintainable, since there was no violation of the provisions of Rule 226.v) There was no willful and conscious violation of any of the provisions of Rule by Mrs. Paresh Parekh as well as Mr. R. Jaiswal and hence imposition of penalty under Rule 209A is illegal and hence not maintainable.3. Heard and considered, it is found -a) When goods are in the factory premises and entered in RG1 stock, no penalty liability or confiscation liability arise. Confiscation cannot be upheld.b) There is force in the grounds taken by the appellants that goods are admittedly accounted in RG1 as per Panchnama. Therefore, confiscation under Rule 226 is not called for.c) When confiscation is not being upheld there can be no penalty on the Director and Excise Signatory under Rule 209A, the same is required to be set aside.d) Penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the company cannot be upheld under Rule 226, since RG1 has the correct quantity accorded.4. Consequentially the appeal is allowed after setting aside the order.(Pronounced in Court on 18/12/2003)