Full Judgment
2. (SIC) the facts are not much in dispute. The appellant No. 1 is a firm, while the appellant No. 2 is a partner of that firm looking after its day to day affairs and business of the firm. The Preventive Officers of the Central Excise raided the factory premises of the appellant on 12.4.1995 and found 336 pieces of semi-finished and 401 pieces of finished goods, that is man-made fabrics, and grey fabrics which were not entered in the statutory records. All those goods had ben detailed in the Show-cause Notice, and these were seized after preparing panchnama, in the presence of two witnesses. The statement of the appellant No. 2, partner of the firm, was recorded wherein he has admitted the lapse of non-entry of the goods in Lot register and other statutory records. Show-cause Notice was accordingly served on the appellants proposing confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalties on them. After getting their reply, the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the seized goods, but gave option to the appellants to get the same redeemed on payment of fine and also imposed penalties on them as detailed in the Order-in-Original, the Commr. (Appeals) has affirmed that Order.
3. None has come on behalf of the appellants. They have prayed a decision on merits vide their letter received in the registry on 5^th May 2003.
4. I have gone through the records and heard the learned SDR. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that appellants No. 2, partner of the firm in his statement recorded on the spot on the date of the seizure of the goods in question, admitted that the seized semi-finished as well as finished goods, were not entered in RG-1 register or any other register. He also admitted that the semi-finished goods (semi-processed/grey fabrics) were not entered in the lot register or in Form IV register. He further, conceded in the statement that fully finished i.e. man-made fabric ready for despatch, were also not accounted for in the RG-1 register. His own admission is sufficient to prove the violation of the Rule 173Q by the appellants. His statement has been rightly relied upon by the authorities below for ordering confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties especially when at no stage before the adjudicating authority, he retracted his statement and offered any explanation for non-accountal of the goods. The findings of the authorities below tat the non-accountal of the semi-finished and finished goods by the appellants in e statutory records, was intentional with a view to avoid payment of duty by removing the clandestine manner, in my view, are well founded.
I do not find any patent mistake or fact of law committed by the Commr.
(Appeals) while passing the impugned order. His order is perfectly valid and such is upheld.5. No reduction in the redemption fine or the penalty amounts is also called for, keeping in view of the conduct of the appellants and the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and the appeals are dismissed.