' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Through this Appeal the Appellant has raised the following question of law: "Whether the learned Tribunal has wrongly interpreted, Rules 5`1, 237 and 238 of Central Excise Rules; 1944"
2. The brief facts, as it appears from the pleadings of the parties, are that, on 16-5-2001 at about 1300 hours. The excise staff during the course of surprise visit inspected the site of the Respondent and found 54 cartons of different sizes of the collapsible tubes, in all 12800 pieces in number were unaccounted for in the RG-1 Register. The excise staff seized the RG-1 Register besides 12800 pieces and issued a Notice to the Respondent calling upon them to show cause why central excise duty amounting to Rs,22,620 alongwith additional duty under section 3-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1944") should not be recovered from them. The Respondent was further called upon to show cause as to why penal action under section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 should not be taken against them.
3. The Respondent replied to the Show-Cause Notice disputed the violation of any of the Excise Rules of 1944 pleading that the goods (Pieces) were in the process of manufacturing and the surprise inspection by the excise staff at 1300 hours created a havoc. The procedure of daily account of production, clearance and balance of the excisable goods as spelt out in Rule 53 as the goods which were in the process of manufacturing were not required to be registered under RG-1 at the time of its manufacture.
4. After hearing the parties, the Deputy Collector; Collectorate of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), Government of Pakistan, Karachi-HI, on 12-11-2001 ordered confiscation of the seized goods under Rule 210 of the Rules of 1944, to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs, 10,000, central excise duty of Rs,22,620 was also ordered to be recovered with penalty of Rs,10,000 besides the recovery of Sales Tax of Rs,3,732. This order-in-original of the Deputy Collector was appealed against by the Respondent before the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Government of Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, which by its order, dated 7-2-2002 reversed the findings of the-Deputy Collector holding that the Respondent has not violated the provisions of Rule' 53 of the Rules of 1944. The order of the learned Tribunal has been impugned by the Appellant in these proceedings.
5. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that the excisable goods, seized by the excise staff were unaccounted for and were not recorded in the relevant register though the said goods were lying in the store-room of the factory Of the Respondent., He submitted that no excisable goods could be kept in store-room of the factory unless it is registered in RG-1 Register. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Appellate Tribunal has erroneously held that the Respondent has not violated the provisions of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1944.
6. As against this, Mr. Muhammad Nadeem Qureshi, Advocate, ha& argued that the surprise visit of the Respondent's factory at 1300 hours was uncalled for and the goods which the Appellant claims as excisable goods were not required to be entered into RG-1 Register as the Respondent's factory works with one shift only of 8 hours from 830 to 1700 hours in terms of Rule 43 of the Rules of 1944.
He further submitted that under the Rule 53(1)(f)(i) of the Rules of 1944, entries were required to be recorded within two hours of the closure of the shift or earlier as and when any urgent order is received. He submitted that during manufacturing of the goods at 1300 hours entries of the nature in the concerned Register were not required to be made as the law provided time under Rule 53 and, therefore, no violation of any nature was made by. The Respondent and the impugned order was justifiable.
7. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. Rule 53 of the Rules of 1944 requires that every manufacturer shall maintain a daily, account of production, clearance and balance of excisable goods. At the same time, the Explanation given under provision of Rule 53(1)(f) of the Rules of 1944 further requires that in case of factory working in one shift only the production entries to be completed within two hours of the closure 'of the shift. Admittedly, the factory of the Respondent has one shift of 8 hours starting from .830 and closure hour was 1700: Even after 1700 hours a two hours grace period is provided in law, to, the Respondent under the. Explanation.
Therefore, the s-submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the excisable goods were unaccounted for and no entry in RG-1 Register was made by the Respondent at 1300 hours was insignificant. Once the law provides the entries of the nature to be recorded within two hours after the closing hours of the factory, the Respondent was not required to make an entry of the excisable goods during its manufacture when admittedly the factory was operative.
8. We have examined the reasoning of the learned Tribunal and we uphold the same. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant is accepted it would defeat the Explanation provided under Rule 53(1)(f) of the Rules of 1944. The Rules do 'not provide that the excisable goods immediately removed to the store-room should be entered into RG-1 Register. The intent of the Legislature as' it appears from the language of Rule 53 clearly provides that two hours after the closing hours of the factory or premises entry of the excisable goods that to be kept in the RG-1 Register but the Respondent or any other manufacturer is not obliged under the Rules to keep making entries of the manufactured goods on the same time in RG-1 Register the moment such goods are manufactured and shifted to the store-room of the factory,. Once the factory is closed for the day two hours further time is given to, the manufacturer to enable him to account for the excisable goods by keeping entry in the RG-1 Register. During operational hours of the factory the non-entering of goods in RG-1 Register for ongoing production cannot be construed to be violation of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1944. The Tribunal was also justified in holding in its impugned order that Rules 236 and 238 would not apply to the goods of the Respondent and these rules would apply to a completely different situation.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we by our short order, dated 22-4-2004 had dismissed this appeal.