Judgment:
1. The appellants requested that the appeal may be decided on merits in their absence.
2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of pressure cookers.
During the visit of Excise officers on 16-2-1995 certain excesses and shortages were found of finished goods and other materials. After adjudication the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad ordered confiscation of 558 number of Pressure Cookers and 321.40 Kgs.
of Aluminium scrap and ordered to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-. The demand of Rs. 12,000/- of excise duty was confirmed on 100 Kgs. of aluminium scrap under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed under Rule 173Q read with Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. The appellants in their appeal memo contended that the factory is situated in the backward area in U.P. The duty on the pressure cooker was introduced first time in the year 1994. They further contended that the number of finished Pressure Cookers were not entered in the RG 1 register only for one day. The authorities below failed to take notice of the production report dated 15-2-1995 with regard to the number of finished goods just moved in on 16-12-1995 to the approved store room.
In these circumstances, they contended that it is a technical lapse.
They further contended that there is no evidence that the appellant has removed the aluminium scrap. It is only a clerical error while totalling the closing balance. In these circumstances, they prey that the impugned order be set aside and appeal be allowed.
5. At the time of visit on 16-2-1995, the physical verification of the stock of pressure cookers was conducted and it was found that 558 number of pressure cookers valued at Rs. 2,41,436.05 were in excess to the recorded balance in RG 1 register. In receipt of raw scarp, the entries under the RG 1 registers were completed upto 2-2-1995 in the showing stock up to 2860.671 Kgs. and in respect of aluminium scrap the entries were up to 10-2-1995 showing a balance of 1493.07 but on physical verification excess of 321.40 Kgs. of aluminium scarp was found. The entries in the RG 1 register finished goods and scrap were made up to 2-2-1995, 10-2-1995, 14-2-1995. There is no valid explanation given by the appellant for not maintaining the statutory records up to the date as required under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and under the rules thereof. The plea of appellant that is a technical lapse is not acceptable. The authorities below also observed that there were cutting and over writing in the RG 1 registers. No information was given to the authorities regarding the alterations made in the RG 1 register. The non-entry of goods in the RG 1 register cannot be treated as condonable lapse. In these circumstances, there is no merit undue appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed.