Bagwe Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the authorities below have confirmed duty demand of rs, 9,450/- on clearances of goods to m/s. bhel by including inspection charges in the assessable value of admiralty brass tubes supplied to m/s. bhel, confiscated waste & scrap of copper, confiscated seized goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of rs. 5 lakhs and imposed penalty of amount equal to duty in terms of section 11ac of the central excise act and penalty of rs. one lakh under rule 173q in addition to imposition of penalties on the officers of the appellant company.2. none appears for the appellants. hence, we heard the id. sdr and perused the records.3. inclusion of inspection charges and duty demand as a consequence of such inclusion is to be sustained as inspection was mandatory for goods supplied to m/s. bhel and the inspection was carried out prior to the removal of goods. we, therefore, uphold the duty demand by inclusion of such inspection charges.4. as regards confiscation of seized goods, the general manager admitted that the goods were in fully manufactured condition and not recorded in the rgi register. hence, their confiscation is sustainable.confiscation of waste and scrap is also upheld. penalty under section 11 ac is also sustained. penalty under rule 173q for contravention of rules as found by the authorities below is also justified. however, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty to rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) 5. subject to the above reduction in the penalty under rule 173q, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Judgment:
1. The authorities below have confirmed duty demand of Rs, 9,450/- on clearances of goods to M/s. BHEL by including inspection charges in the assessable value of admiralty brass tubes supplied to M/s. BHEL, confiscated waste & scrap of copper, confiscated seized goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposed penalty of amount equal to duty in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and penalty of Rs. One lakh under Rule 173Q in addition to imposition of penalties on the officers of the appellant company.

2. None appears for the appellants. Hence, we heard the Id. SDR and perused the records.

3. Inclusion of inspection charges and duty demand as a consequence of such inclusion is to be sustained as inspection was mandatory for goods supplied to M/s. BHEL and the inspection was carried out prior to the removal of goods. We, therefore, uphold the duty demand by inclusion of such inspection charges.

4. As regards confiscation of seized goods, the General Manager admitted that the goods were in fully manufactured condition and not recorded in the RGI register. Hence, their confiscation is sustainable.

Confiscation of waste and scrap is also upheld. Penalty under Section 11 AC is also sustained. Penalty under Rule 173Q for contravention of Rules as found by the authorities below is also justified. However, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) 5. Subject to the above reduction in the penalty under Rule 173Q, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.