STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STEEL Authority of India, Rourkela STEEL Plant, Rourkela had filed a revision petition under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 before the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi, being aggrieved from Order No. 4B of 1980 dated 7-1-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi against the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar. After coming into existence of the Tribunal the said revision petition stands transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The same is being disposed of as an appeal.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Central Excise officers, A.I. Unit, Rourkela paid a surprise visit on 27-9-1975 and checked the RG 1 of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Rourkela, L4 No. l/Fert/69. The RG 1 was found not maintained in respect of production from 15-9-1975 and in respect of clearance of Ammonium Sulphate from 8-9-1975. A show cause notice was issued vide C. No. V-14HH-15 175/75/9374-75 dated 16-10-1976 of the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Rourkela asking Hindustan Steel Ltd. to show cause as to why penal action should not be taken against them under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravening the provisions of Rule 173G(4). In reply to the said S.C. notice the appellant pleaded that writing of the RG was interlinked with the writing of P.L.A. In other words as soon as the postings in the P.L. A. are made, simultaneously thereafter the RG 1 is posted. If there is slight delay in posting in either of two registers, the same will reflect in the other posting also. They had pleaded that these delays were unintentional. Since there were Puja Holidays there was some trouble in manning due to absentism. The learned Collector had held that the appellant's contention that posting in RG 1 and posting in P.L.A. are interlinked, is correct only in respect of figures of clearance of excisable goods Production figures to be posted in the RG 1 has nothing to do with P.L.A. He did not find the explanation convincing and accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q ibid, for contravention of Rule 173G(4). Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant had gone in appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. The Member of the Board had upheld the findings of the Collector and the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant had filed a revision petition to the Central Government which stands transferred to the Tribunal.

(3.) IN reply, Shri A.K. Sarkar, the learned Sr. D.R. has pleaded that there is contravention of the provisions of Rule 173G(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and has pleaded that the penal action under Rule 173Q ibid has been correctly taken. He has also submitted that the appellant has cleared the goods without payment of duty and there was no balance in the P.L.A. He has further pleaded that during the course of argument the 1d. Advocate's argument that the penalty can be imposed at Rs. 2,000/- would tantamount to the acceptance of the guilt on the part of the appellant. He has pleaded that the order passed by the Board is correct in law and the appeal filed by the appellant should be dismissed.