ORDER
M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. YPP/1007 & 1008/SRT/2002/4974 dated 23.10.2002.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:
(a) When the officers visited the factory on 28.3.97 and conducted verification, they found stock of 57545 Kgs. of Super Enamelled Copper Winding Wires and 1,77,575 Mtrs. Insulated Copper Winding Wires valued at about Rs. 1 crore not having been entered in the RG-1 register.
(b) The representative of the company explained that the goods, which were not accounted, represented production of 10 to 12 days prior to 27.3.97 and the same were not entered in the RG-1 register for reasons like non-weighment and non-packing.
(c) The original authority confiscated the unaccounted goods under Rule 173Q(1) and imposed fine of Rs. 2 lakhs in lieu of confiscation of the goods. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant company. He also imposed penalties on others, which were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).
(d) The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confiscation of the goods and redemption fine and also the penalty imposed on the appellant company.
(e) Hence, the present appeal.
4. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that as the workers were on holidays on account of Holi and packing and weighing could not be completed and the goods were not entered in RG-1 register. However, he submits that this is not a case of “Not accounting for” the manufactured goods even though the same were not found entered in the RG-1 register. He relied on the following judgments in support of his proposition:
(i) CCE, Ahmedabad v. Continental Chemicals
(ii) Nilesh Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai
5. The ld. SDR submits that obligation to “account for” the manufactured goods is not only in respect of the finished goods, which were packed and ready for dispatch of the goods but also goods in loose condition. RG-1 register provided for specific column for such goods. He also relied upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, Vapi v. Modison Ltd. reported in 2006 (203) ELT 521 (Tri-LB) and submitted that the obligation to “account for” is a strict obligation and penal action is attracted without reference to mens rea under Rule 173Q(1)(a) (b) (c) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that huge quantity of goods representing about 10 to 12 days of production were not accounted in the RG-1 register which envisaged accounted of not only goods, which were ready for despatch but also goods in loose condition. The reason given by the ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant that due to holidays on account of Holi, the production could not be accounted for more than 10 days is not justified. Non-accountal especially for such a long period attracts penal provisions, even in the absence of any evidence of mens rea. The ld. Advocate also submitted that what was in bonded store was found to tally with the figures recorded in the RG-1 register and no discrepancy was noticed. Taking all these into the account, we hold that the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty are warranted. However, some leniency is justified. Accordingly, we reduce the redemption fine imposed from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh and reduce the penalty imposed from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) only.
7. The appeal is partly allowed as above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)