The Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Silver Prints

The Commissioner of Customs and vs Silver Prints

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 05, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34030

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/34030
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: M T K.D.
Decided On: Feb 05, 2004
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Commissioner of Customs and

Respondent

Silver Prints

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(169)ELT245Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....the goods are not held to liable to confiscation.revenue appeal challenges the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal.2. heard the ld. dr. the respondents are not present despite notice.the only ground for setting aside the order of the confiscation is the finding recorded by the commissioner (appeals) to the effect that, there is no finding of clandestine removal and no intention to evade duty was alleged or found. i am unable to accept this proposition for the simple reason that, failure to make an entry in the rg-1 register could be condoned treating to be a minor lapse only when there is corroborative evidence to show that there were internal records maintained by the factory and intimated to the department in terms of rule 173g(5) of the central excise rules, 1944 and the said production is reflected in such private records and making entry in the rg-1 register was only an omission for transferring the details of entries made in the private records in the rg-1 register. in the absence of any such evidence, in the facts of the case, the violation of rule 173q(1) (b) is clearly established. on such establishment, no other evidence regarding existence of evidence of clandestine removal or intention to evade payment of duty is required to be established. i, therefore, hold that, the impugned order-in-appeal is not proper and the same deserves to be set aside.3. accordingly, the revenue's appeal succeeds and the same is allowed and the impugned order-in-original is set aside so far as the present respondents are concerned.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue's appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The allegations made against the respondents was that they had failed to account for certain quantities of Man Made (processed) Fabrics recovered from their premises, in ready to despatch condition. The adjudicating authority confiscated the said unaccounted quantity of goods and allowed the party to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The respondents were also asked to pay appropriate duty at the time of clearance of the said goods, besides the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the respondents. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that, confiscation was not called for. However, maximum penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 226 for non-entry of the production was confirmed. Penalty on proprietor was set aside since the goods are not held to liable to confiscation.

Revenue appeal challenges the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal.

2. Heard the Ld. DR. The respondents are not present despite notice.

The only ground for setting aside the order of the confiscation is the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that, there is no finding of clandestine removal and no intention to evade duty was alleged or found. I am unable to accept this proposition for the simple reason that, failure to make an entry in the RG-1 register could be condoned treating to be a minor lapse only when there is corroborative evidence to show that there were internal records maintained by the factory and intimated to the department in terms of Rule 173G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the said production is reflected in such private records and making entry in the RG-1 register was only an omission for transferring the details of entries made in the private records in the RG-1 register. In the absence of any such evidence, in the facts of the case, the violation of Rule 173Q(1) (b) is clearly established. On such establishment, no other evidence regarding existence of evidence of clandestine removal or intention to evade payment of duty is required to be established. I, therefore, hold that, the impugned Order-in-Appeal is not proper and the same deserves to be set aside.

3. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal succeeds and the same is allowed and the impugned order-in-original is set aside so far as the present respondents are concerned.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties The Commissioner of Customs and vs Silver Prints Same Subject Excise Same Judge M T K.D.