ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides and perused the record.
2. The appellant is a manufacturer of ferro silicon. Under the impugned order, 117 MTs. of material remain confiscated and penalty imposed on the Director of the company. The ground for imposition of penalty is that aforesaid quantities of ferro silicon were found not entered in RG-1 register when Central Excise officers visited on 19th November, 1997.
3. The explanation of the appellant all through was that said quantity (in powder form) was not marketable as only ferro silicon in lump form can be marketed. The appellant also requested that either sample may be drawn or tested and expert opinion obtained. Both were not done. Goods were confiscated on the ground that irrespective of quality, manufactured goods are required to be entered in the statutory production record (RG-1).
4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the reason for non-entry of the goods is that production process was not complete and goods can be entered in the production register only after all processes in connection with the manufacture are complete. learned Counsel in this connection has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhillai Conductors 2000 (125) E.L.T. 781 in support of his contention that goods lying in the factory are not liable to be confiscated merely for the reason that they were not entered in RG-1 register.
5. The only offence found in relation to the goods is that they were not entered in the statutory daily production record. The appellant offered their explanation at the time of seizure itself, that the goods were not fit/ready for sale and therefore, they were not entered in the production record. They had also requested the department to verify the factual aspect. However, no verification was carried out, and goods confiscated. This action cannov be accepted. The goods were found in the factory itself and the appellant has a valid explanation as to why they were not entered n the production register. That explanation has not been considered. It is well-settled that goods do not become liable for confiscation merely for failure to enter them in the books of account, particularly, when, as in the present case, the appellant had a valid reason.
6. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the confiscation and imposition of penalty are not justifiable. Accordingly, the impugned Order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any, to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)