ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated nil, communicated to them on 21-9-1995, who upheld the order-in-original dated 4-8-1995 of the Additional Collector ordering seizure of the goods i.e. sugar and the molasses with an option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 25,000/- as redemption fine and imposing penalty of Rs. 5000/- on them.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under :
3. The appellants are manufacturer of sugar and molasses. The Preventive Officers of Central Excise Divisions, Bareilly paid a surprise visit to their factory premises on 21-2-1994 and found 1374 qtls. brown sugar and 30 qtls. of white sugar excess. The records were not produced by the appellants before them at that time for explaining the excess quantity of sugar lying in the factory. Similarly, 559-61 qtls. of molasses was also found excess than the balance recorded in the record. This facts was even admitted by Mohd. Vasim, Dy. Chief Chemist of the appellants in his statement recorded at the spot. The goods were seized through a panchnama at the spot by the Preventive Party. Thereafter show cause notice was issued to the appellants requiring them to show cause as to why the goods be not seized and penalty be not imposed on them. The appellants, however, contested the show cause notice and maintained that the entries in the relevant records i.e. RG1 and RG 6 registers, inadvertently could not be made and there was no intention on the part of the appellants to remove the goods clandestinely. The Additional Collector, however, did not accept this contention of the appellants and through his order-in-original dated 4-1-1995 ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 25,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the appellants.
4. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the Additional Collector the appellants went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who through the impugned order upheld the order of the Additional Collector.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellants has challenged the validity of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the seizure of the goods and imposition of redemption fine on the main ground that since the goods were lying in the factory premises itself, such an order could not legally passed.
6. The learned JDR has not been able to dispute this contention of the Counsel. It is an admitted fact that the excess found sugar was still lying in the factory premises of the appellants. There is nothing on record to show record that there was any intention on the part of the appellants to remove the same. It is well settled that the seizure of the goods cannot be ordered when the same are found in the premises of the assessee. That being so, the impugned order to the extent of the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine is illegal. Regarding the imposition of penalty it has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the relevant registers i.e. RG 1 and RG 6 were not properly maintained. Therefore, the penalty has been rightly imposed on the appellants by the authorities below. The amount of penalty cannot be said to be too harsh and as such the same is confirmed.
7. With the abovesaid modification in the impugned order, the appeal of the appellants stands partly accepted.
