ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority ordering the confiscation of the goods and imposing penalties on Appellants No. 1 and also on Appellants No. 2, the Director of the firm, Appellants No. 1, under Rule 209-A of the Rules.
2. The facts are not much in dispute. The anti-evasion staff of the Central Excise Division, Bhilwara, conducted raid on the factory premises of the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of processed man-made fabrics. 9 lumps-673 metres of processed man-made fabrics was found loaded in the truck parked inside the factory premises. These goods were being attempted to be cleared under a fake invoice No. 1209 and this fact was conceded at the spot by Appellant No. 2, Director of the firm, by stating that whatever had been disclosed by his excise clerk, Shri Devender Singh about the issuance of a fake invoice, was correct. On carrying out the further checking, 7609.30 metres of unprocessed fabrics was found to be not entered in the record. On completion of inquiry, show cause notice was accordingly issued to the appellants proposing the confiscation of the goods seized from the truck and the goods found unaccounted lying in the factory premises as well as imposition of penalties under the law. After getting the reply, the adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the goods with an option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 75,000 and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000 on Appellants No. 1 under Rule 173-Q, and penalty of Rs. 10,000 on Appellant No. 2 under Rule 209-A of the Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the said order.
3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. So far as the confiscation of 9 lumps-673 metres of processed man made fabrics which was found loaded in the truck parked inside the factory premises and for the clearance of which fake invoice was found, and this fact was also not disputed by Appellant No. 2 as well as by Shri Devender Singh, Excise Clerk in their respective statements, is concerned, the same has not been challenged before me. What has been challenged by the counsel, is the confiscation of the unprocessed fabrics measuring 7609.30 metres on the ground that it was not a finished fabrics and as such was not required to be entered in the said statutory record at that time. This ground, in my view, deserves to be accepted. The bare perusal of the impugned order itself shows that this much fabrics was lying unprocessed and the same was to be entered in the statutory record after it had become processed man made fabrics. It is not the case of the Department that these goods bear any mark or beam number or were found excess than what was recorded in the records, pertaining to the raw material stock. These goods were seized on the belief that they were intended to be removed at subsequent stage after processing the same. But on such a belief, the seizure of the goods could not be made under the law. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the confiscation of these goods, cannot be sustained.
4. The perusal of the impugned order shown that a composite redemption fine for the redemption of the goods found in the truck as well as unfinished goods found lying in the factory premises of the appellants, has been imposed by the authorities below. But, in view of the discussion made above, that only confiscation of the finished goods found lying in the truck, which were finished goods and not the unfinished goods could be made, the redemption fine is accordingly reduced to Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand only) taking into account the quantity of the goods and their value. Similarly, the penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed on the Appellants No. 2 under Rule 173-Q of the Rules, in the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, is reduced to Rs. 15,000 (rupees fifteen thousand only). However, the penalty imposed on Appellants No. 2 of Rs. 10,000 does not require any reduction, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order stands accordingly modified in the above terms.
5. The appeals of the appellants stand disposed of accordingly.