Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mutual Mecaplast Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Mutual Mecaplast Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 31, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40691

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/40691
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S.
Decided On: Oct 31, 2005
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Mutual Mecaplast Ltd.

Excerpt

.....excise duty in rg23a part ii/pla and thus committed offence in this regard which has also been admitted by the manager and the chairman of the said unit. the commissioner (appeals) in his order-in-appeal dated 4-8-2003 has not appreciated the fact that the unrecorded stock was not entered in rg1 register for a month which clearly established the intention of the offender to remove excisable goods without payment of duty. further if such violation is viewed leniently then it may endanger the revenue where the entire trust is placed on records maintained by the assessee.2.1 after hearing both sides and considering the material and the law on the subject, it is found. (a) the commissioner (appeals) has noticed that the statement of shri parmar dated 20-12-2000 has been challenged by him on 9-11-2001 and also there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant made any attempt to remove the goods under seizure, clandestinely with intent to evade duty. thereafter applying the law, as held in various decision of this tribunal, that there should be independent evidence to show that there was an intent to remove the goods clandestinely without discharge of duty and since the same is absent, the liability to confiscation of the goods was set aside. (b) on the failure of the respondents in not entering the goods in the rg1, he reduced the penalty under rule 173q to rs. 2000/-, the maximum prescribed under the rule for non maintenance of correct stock book. (c) the sold ground taken by the revenue of the goods not entered for a month will not by itself call for establishing an intent. a person intending to clandestinely remove goods without payment of duty, would be quick to remove the same and not await the risk of detection by keeping the same in his factory for over a month unaccounted. (d) no merits are found in revenue's appeal to upset the commissioner of central excise (appeals) order based on correct appreciation of material evidences absence in this case.....

Full Judgment

1. M/s. Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. the Respondents herein, are engaged in the manufacture of moulded plastic goods for automobiles and electronic appliances. During the course of preventive check, the Central Excise Officers seized excess stock of finished goods valued at Rs. 10,43,615/- and Rs. 28,95,805/- found within and outside the BSR respectively, which was not entered in RG1 register, under the reasonable belief that the aforesaid goods were offending in nature and were liable to confiscation under provision of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The above seized goods were fully finished in ready for marketable condition. Also the goods were cleared by the party without debiting the Central Excise duty in RG23A Part II/PLA and thus committed offence in this regard which has also been admitted by the Manager and the Chairman of the said unit. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal dated 4-8-2003 has not appreciated the fact that the unrecorded stock was not entered in RG1 register for a month which clearly established the intention of the offender to remove excisable goods without payment of duty. Further if such violation is viewed leniently then it may endanger the revenue where the entire trust is placed on records maintained by the assessee.

2.1 After hearing both sides and considering the material and the law on the subject, it is found.

(a) The Commissioner (Appeals) has noticed that the statement of Shri Parmar dated 20-12-2000 has been challenged by him on 9-11-2001 and also there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant made any attempt to remove the goods under seizure, clandestinely with intent to evade duty. Thereafter applying the law, as held in various decision of this Tribunal, that there should be independent evidence to show that there was an intent to remove the goods clandestinely without discharge of duty and since the same is absent, the liability to confiscation of the goods was set aside.

(b) On the failure of the Respondents in not entering the goods in the RG1, he reduced the penalty under Rule 173Q to Rs. 2000/-, the maximum prescribed under the rule for non maintenance of correct stock book.

(c) The sold ground taken by the Revenue of the goods not entered for a month will not by itself call for establishing an intent. A person intending to clandestinely remove goods without payment of duty, would be quick to remove the same and not await the risk of detection by keeping the same in his factory for over a month unaccounted.

(d) No merits are found in Revenue's appeal to upset the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) order based on correct appreciation of material evidences absence in this case and the application of the case law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge S T S.S.

Excise material evidence Excisable goods Excise Officer Excise duty Engaged in set aside