ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of A/C Kits. On 22-3-2001 the Officers of Central Excise Department visited the factory of the appellants and during the verification of the stock, 34 A/C Kits were found excess to their recorded RG-I record. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed the redemption fine of Rs. 20,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Narinder Narang, Director of the appellant’s Firm.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The contention of the appellants is that 34 A/C Kits were their day’s production and as the officers visited the factory at about 12.30 P.M. as these kits are to be entered in their statutory record as their day’s production. Therefore, the contention of the appellants is that they are not liable for confiscation.
5. In respect of the penalty imposed on Shri Narinder Narang, Director of the appellant’s Firm, the contention of the appellants is that in the show cause notice nor in the adjudication order, there is no omission or commission on the part of the Director to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the penalty on the Director is not sustainable.
6. The contention of the Revenue is that at the time of verification, the appellants were failed to produce any record in support of their contention is that the 34 A/C Kits-are of their day’s production. The Departmental Representative reiterated the finding of the lower authority.
7. It is admitted fact that 34 A/C Kits which were packed were not entered in the statutory record. The appellants’ plea is that these kits are their day’s
production is without any merit as the appellants had not produced any evidence in support of this plea. The Hon’ble High Court in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.) = 2002 (83) ECC 497 (Bom.) held that the unaccounted finished goods are liable for confiscation. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble High Court, I find no infirmity in the order whereby unaccounted goods were confiscated. However, taking into facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). In respect of the penalty imposed on Shri Narinder Narang, Director of the Company, there is no finding in the adjudicating order nor in the order-in-appeal regarding his role which shows’ that there was any intention on his part to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the penalty imposed on Shri Narinder Narang, Director of the Company is set aside and the appeals are disposed of as indicated above.