Full Judgment
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are a 100% Export oriented unit. On 24.1.98, the officers of Central Excise Department visited the factory of the respondents and during the verification, it was found certain finished goods were found in excess to the statutory records. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the ground that the goods found in excess of the balance shown in the RG-1 record liable for confiscation and imposition of penalty on the respondents. The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the goods and also ordered that the goods to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,16,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 4,20,000/- was also imposed on the respondents. The respondents filed the appeal and the same was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. The contention of the Revenue is that though a 100% EOU is not required to maintain RG-1 register but they are required to maintain daily stock register. As the goods were found in excess of the recorded balance in their statutory record, therefore, the excess goods are not liable for confiscation.
5. The contention of the Revenue is that at the time of verification of records, the respondents failed to account two moulds which were later on found by the respondents, therefore, at time of verification of the records, the appellants were not maintaining the records properly.
6. The contention of the respondents is that as a 100% EOU, they are not required to maintain RG-1 register. The respondents relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kuntal Granites (P) Ltd. Vs.
CCE, Belgaum, 2002-Taxindiaonline-44-CESTAT-BANG and in the case of CCE, New Delhi Vs. Jindal Exports, 2003 (59) ELT 281.
7. In respect of moulds, the contention of the respondents is that out of stock 1698 moulds, two moulds were not found at the time of verification but thereafter both were found, therefore, there is no shortage of moulds.
8. In this case, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the ground that there was excess stock of goods than the recorded in RG-1 register.
9. The contention of the respondents is that, they are not required to maintain RG-1 register. I find that the RG-1 register is prescribed under Rules, 47, 53 and 173G of the Central Excise Rules and Rule 100-H (3), under Chapter VA is applicable to 100% EOU and this rule specifically provides that the provisions of Rule 47 and Rule 53 shall not apply to the excisable goods produced or manufactured in a 100% EOU. The Tribunal in the case CCE, New Delhi Vs. Jindal Exports after relying upon the Board Circular No. 212/46/96-CX. dated 20.5.96 held that a 100% EOU is not required to maintain RG-1 register.
10. In the present case as the respondents were not required to maintain the RG-1 register, therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of setting aside the confiscation and penalty. In respect of two moulds which were not found at the time of verification, the respondents produced the moulds subsequently, therefore, I find no merit in the contention of the Revenue in this regard also. The appeal is dismissed.