Full Judgment
According to the Department, as per Delhi Collectorate Trade Notice No.3-C.E./84, dated 28-1-1984 and the Basic Manual on manufactured goods, the fluorescent lighting tubes are first put to flash test before metallic caps are fitted to see if the circuit is complete, and thereafter tube lights are fitted with metallic caps and are soldered.
They can then be considered as manufactured for the purpose of entering into the RG-1 register. A show cause notice proposing confiscation of the seized goods and recovery of duty of Rs. 62,250 /- and proposing imposition of penalty was issued to the appellants and the case was adjudicated by the Additional Collector who confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The lower appellate authority having upheld the order passed by the Additional Collector, the above appeal has been filed by the assessees.
2. I have heard Shri M. Ganesan, learned Advocate and Shri Nayyar, learned DR. Learned Counsel's submission that the goods were not fully manufactured is contrary to the record viz. the panchnama and the adjudication order which records that the goods were in fully manufactured stage. The requirement of quality control tests referred to by the learned Counsel had been dealt with in the order passed by the Additional Collector who has held that all the seized goods had been duly packed with strips, etc. and, therefore, cannot be said to be awaiting quality control tests. Once the goods had been packed, even if the same were to be retested, the requirement in law is of entry of the same in the RG-1 register. The Additional Collector has seen the different RG-1 stages prescribed in the Delhi Collectorate Trade Notice and the Basic Manual. While the Basic Manual provides for entering production in RG-1 register after fitting of metallic cap and then get soldering done, while the Trade Notice provides for entry in RG-1 after final testing and inspection. The Additional Collector has considered all the circumstances and the fact that the goods were already packed in fully manufactured condition to hold that quality control tests had already been carried out and the packing had been done after carrying out these tests. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that the goods had not yet reached RG-1 stage.
Learned DR is correct in pointing out that the goods are liable to confiscation for non-accountal. The only question that remains is as to whether the quantum of redemption fine and penalty are commensurate with the value of the goods and the gravity of the offence. I find that the value of the goods is around Rs. 7 lakhs and, therefore, the quantum of RF and penalty cannot be considered to be excessive and they are quite in proportion to the value of the goods. There is no satisfactory explanation or argument for reduction of the quantum of redemption fine and penalty and since both the amounts are not disproportionate to the value of the goods, I see no reason to interfere with the quantum fixed by the authorities below.
3. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal rejected.