JUDGMENT : R. Banumathi, C.J. Challenging the order dated 6.5.2005 passed by the CESTAT modifying the order of the Commissioner and reducing the redemption fine to Rs.3 lakhs and imposing personal penalty of Rs.3 lakhs, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantive question of law:- “Whether the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is attracted in the absence of any intention to waive the payment of central excise duty and/or in absence of removal of any excisable goods or any entry of any excisable goods in RG-1 Register? 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots. On 27.04.2001, the Officers of the Central Excise visited the factory premises of the appellant and scrutinized the records of production and clearance of MS Ingots. Scrutiny of RG-1 Register (Daily Stock Account) maintained at the factory of the appellant showed a balance stock of 260.290 MT held by them on that date. However, on verification, the actual stock of MS Ingots lying in the factory premises of the appellant were found to be much in excess of what was shown as balance stock in the RG-1 Register. Therefore, a physical verification of stock of MS Ingots lying in the factory premises was undertaken by the Central Excise Officers and altogether 10262 pieces of MS Ingots were found stored in different lots. To determine the weight of MS Ingots lying in the stock, weighment of 1012 pieces of MS Ingots were selected randomly and total weight of 1012 pieces was found to be 83950 Kgs. and therefore, the average weight of one piece of MS Ingots worked out to 82.95 Kgs. Accordingly, the weight of total stock of MS Ingots physically available in the factory premises was worked out to 861.495 MT. An excess stock of 601.205 MT was thus found than what was recorded in the RG-1 Register, i.e. 260.290 MT. After issuing the show cause notice dated 23/24.5.2001 and after affording opportunity to the appellant, the Commissioner of Central Excise passed the Order-in-Original No.52/MP/Commr/2004 dated 29.07.2004 ordering confiscation of the seized MS Ingots weighing 601.205 MT (7162 pieces) under Rule 173Q read with Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. After issuing the show cause notice dated 23/24.5.2001 and after affording opportunity to the appellant, the Commissioner of Central Excise passed the Order-in-Original No.52/MP/Commr/2004 dated 29.07.2004 ordering confiscation of the seized MS Ingots weighing 601.205 MT (7162 pieces) under Rule 173Q read with Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner, however, gave an option to the appellant to redeem the confiscated quantity of MS Ingots on payment of redemption fine of Rs.10 lakhs. The Commissioner also imposed penalty of Rs.10 lakhs under Rule 173Q read with Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner dated 29.07.2004, the appellant preferred appeal before the CESTAT. CESTAT observed that there no infirmity in the method arrived at the total excess of MS Ingots. Referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in 1988 (34) ELT 30 (Bom.) (Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Union Of India), the Tribunal held that unaccounted goods found in the factory are liable for confiscation and found no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner ordered for confiscation of the excess goods. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine of penalty was reduced to Rs.3 lakhs and personal penalty was reduced to Rs.3 lakhs by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Deepak Roshan, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. The appellant started manufacturing on 29.1.2001. The commercial production also started. The factory premises was inspected by the Officers on 27.4.2001. The RG-1 Register showed a balance stock of 260.290 MT held by the appellant on the date. The actual stock of MS Ingots lying in the factory premises was in excess, i.e. 10262 pieces of MS Ingots were stored in four different lots. Rule 173G(4) stipulates that every assessee to maintain such accounts as the Commissioner may require from time to time. Rule 53 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER, 1944) mandates every manufacturer to maintain a daily stock account and Rule 54 to file monthly returns. Rule 173G(4) stipulates that every assessee to maintain such accounts as the Commissioner may require from time to time. Rule 53 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER, 1944) mandates every manufacturer to maintain a daily stock account and Rule 54 to file monthly returns. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant that the appellant had violated the provisions of Rules 53, 54 and 173G(4) of CER, 1944, inasmuch as deliberately mis-stating production figures in their RG-1 Register, filing returns giving false production figures and holding excess stock with an intent to clear goods clandestinely and evade payment of central excise duty. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in paragraph (10) of the order dated 29.7.2004, the Commissioner of Central Excise categorically held that there was no evidence on record that the appellant ever intended to clandestinely remove the goods without payment of duty and in such a situation, the alleged contravention of the provisions of Rules 53, 54 and 173G(4) cannot authorize the respondents to levy penalty under Rule 173Q read with Rule 209. Learned counsel further submitted that since the appellant started production only on 29.1.2001, the MS Ingots lying in the factory premises were only for test products with incorrect measurement and were not marketable and while so, the Commissioner proceeded on wrong assumption that the goods lying in the factory premises were finished goods and marketable. It was further submitted that the goods, being of different lengths and only unfinished, could not be removed for sale or for marketing purposes and it was, therefore, not incumbent upon the appellant to make entries in the RG-1 Register and thus, there was no violation of any rules authorizing respondents to levy penalty under Rule 173Q read with Rule 209. 8. Rule 173G deals with the procedure to be followed by the assessee. As per Rule 173G, every assessee to keep an account-current with the Commissioner separately for each excisable goods. As per Rule 173G(4), every assessee to maintain such accounts as the Commissioner may from time to time require. 8. Rule 173G deals with the procedure to be followed by the assessee. As per Rule 173G, every assessee to keep an account-current with the Commissioner separately for each excisable goods. As per Rule 173G(4), every assessee to maintain such accounts as the Commissioner may from time to time require. Rule 173G(4) reads as under:- “173G(4)(a) Every assessee shall maintain such accounts, as the Commissioner may from time to time require or [permit, subject to such conditions as may be specified by him] of the production, manufacture, storage, delivery or disposal of the goods, including the materials received for or consumed in the manufacture of excisable goods or other goods, the goods and materials in stock with him and duty determined and paid by him.” 9. As pointed out earlier, Rule 53 mandates every manufacturer to maintain a stock account and Rule 54 to file monthly returns. Rules 53 and 54 read as follows:- “53.Daily stock account.- (1) Every manufacturer shall maintain a stock account in such Form as the Commissioner may in any particular case or class of cases allow, and shall enter in such account daily – (a) description of goods, (b) opening balance, (c) quantity manufactured, (d) quantity, deposited in the store-room, or other place of storage approved by the Commissioner under rule 47, (e) quantity removed, after payment of duty from such store-room or other place of storage or from the place or premises specified under rule 9, (f) quantity delivered from the factory without payment of duty for export or other purposes, and (g) the rate of duty and the amount of such duty: Provided that a manufacturer who furnishes a declaration in the Form annexed hereto may be exempted by the Commissioner from making “nil” entries in the above account on days on which there is no production, receipt in store-room, or clearance of excisable. 54. 54. Monthly returns.- Within five days after the close of each month every manufacturer shall submit to the proper officer a monthly return in the proper Form showing the quantity of excisable goods manufactured during the month, the quantity (if any) used within the factory for the manufacture of another commodity, the quantity removed on payment of duty from the place or premises specified under rule 9 or from the store-room or other place of storage approved by the Commissioner under rule 47, the quantity removed for export without payment of duty, and such other particulars as may be elsewhere prescribed or as the Central Board of Excise and Customs or the Commissioner may, by general or special order, require, and, where so required by the Commissioner, by a written notice, shall submit a similar return in the proper Form showing all the other products manufactured in and issued from the factory during the same month.” 10. In so far as the first limb of submission that the goods were not in fully finished condition and that the appellant was not required to make entries in RG-1 Register; therefore, there was no violation of Rules 53 and 54, is concerned, the same appears to be an afterthought. The said contention was not raised by the appellant in the show cause submitted by the appellant on 10.10.2001 and 7.3.2002. In the show cause submitted by the appellant on 10.10.2001, the appellant had only disputed the variation in measurement and also the mode of physical verification undertaken by the Officers. Disputing the physical verification and also the mode of measurement, the appellant stated in the show cause dated 10.10.2001 as under:- “...In the face of huge variation found in respect of M.S. Ingots of general lengths and in view of the presence of 10 to 15% of the small lengths of M.S. Ingots the verification was not proper and valid. The Officers had taken the average of 1012 pcs. Of M.S. Ingots and applied the same to the number of ingots alleged to have found. We seriously disputed the physical verification undertaken by the officers and the result of such alleged verification was not proper and correct and on the basis of such verification no conclusion about the correct weight of the M.S. Ingots could be ascertained. Of M.S. Ingots and applied the same to the number of ingots alleged to have found. We seriously disputed the physical verification undertaken by the officers and the result of such alleged verification was not proper and correct and on the basis of such verification no conclusion about the correct weight of the M.S. Ingots could be ascertained. ..” By a careful reading of the above reply of the assessee, it appears that nowhere the appellant stated that the goods were not finished products and were not intended for marketing purposes and therefore, not required to be entered into RG-1 Register. The non-saleability of the goods being extended as a bona fide reason of non-entering the goods in RG-1 Register is totally baseless and unacceptable. 11. On the other hand, Annexure – 9 contradicts the contention of the appellant that the goods were not saleable. As per para 2 of the said Annexure 9 dated 14.3.2002, the appellant requested for provisional release of the seized MS Ingots weighing 601.205 MT found in excess of the stock shown in the RG-1 Register. In para 2 of the said Annexure – 9, the appellant stated, “Moreover passage of time may cause further depreciation in the price of the same due to rusting.” The said statement made in Annexure – 9 contradicts the contention of the appellant that the seized goods were not saleable and hence, not required to be entered into RG-1 Register. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in the show cause dated 24.5.2001, violation of Rules 53, 54 and 173G(4) with the intention to clear the goods clandestinely and evade payment of central excise duty was alleged. Laying emphasis upon Rule 173Q(1)(d), it was contended that unless it is proved that there was an attempt by the appellant to clandestinely remove the goods from the factory premises, confiscation of the goods cannot be ordered and penalty cannot be imposed simply due to non-accounting of the goods in the RG-1 Register. 13. Laying emphasis upon Rule 173Q(1)(d), it was contended that unless it is proved that there was an attempt by the appellant to clandestinely remove the goods from the factory premises, confiscation of the goods cannot be ordered and penalty cannot be imposed simply due to non-accounting of the goods in the RG-1 Register. 13. In paragraph 10 of the order dated 29.7.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held as under:- “..However, unaccounted for stock found in the factory in the course of physical verification of the stock does not by itself establish, beyond doubt, the intention of the notice to remove the same clandestinely without payment of duty.....” Laying emphasis on the observations made in paragraph 10 of the order of the Commissioner, learned counsel for the appellant contended that when the Commissioner of Central Excise categorically held that there was no evidence or material that the appellant intended to clandestinely remove the goods without payment of duty and in such a situation, the alleged contravention of the provisions of Rule 53 and 173G(4) cannot authorize the respondents to levy penalty under Rule 173Q read with Rule 209. 14. Refuting the contention, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that non-accounting of goods in the statutory records is a clear evidence to show the intention of the assessee for clandestine removal of the goods and hence, the order of confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are fully justified. 15. Rule 173Q reads as under:- “173Q. 14. Refuting the contention, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that non-accounting of goods in the statutory records is a clear evidence to show the intention of the assessee for clandestine removal of the goods and hence, the order of confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are fully justified. 15. Rule 173Q reads as under:- “173Q. Confiscation and penalty.- (1) If any manufacturer, producer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer – (a) removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules; or (b) does not account for any excisable goods manufactured, produced or stored by him; or (bb) xxxxxxxxxx (bbb) xxxxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxxxxxxx (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these rules with intent to evade payment of duty, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the manufacturer, producer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer, as the case may be, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention of the nature referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (bb) or clause (bbb) or clause (c) or clause (d) has been committed or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater.” Rule 209, which deals with confiscation and levy of penalty, is identical to that of Rule 173Q. 16. Sub-clause(a), (b), (d) in Rule 173Q are independent provisions. Expression used as a conjunction, “or” indicating that each of the clauses is independent and violation of each of the sub-clauses attracts confiscation and penalty. Sub-clause (b) mandates that goods shall be liable to confiscation if any manufacturer does not account for any excisable goods manufactured, produced or stored by him. The excisable goods lying in the factory premises were not accounted for in the statutory records and thereby, violation of Rules 173G(4), 53 and 54. Non-accounting of goods in the statutory records attracts Rule 173Q(1)(b) and hence, the manufactured goods unaccounted for were liable to confiscation. The appellant is, thus, not right in contending that confiscation of goods was not attracted by mere non-accounting in RG-1 Register. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Rule 173Q being a penal clause, intention is in-built in it and therefore, mens rea of the appellant to evade payment of duty must be established. The appellant is, thus, not right in contending that confiscation of goods was not attracted by mere non-accounting in RG-1 Register. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Rule 173Q being a penal clause, intention is in-built in it and therefore, mens rea of the appellant to evade payment of duty must be established. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decision rendered in the case of Akbar Badrudin Giwani Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in (1990) 2 SCC 203 . In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the confiscation and penalty under section 111(d) and 112 of Customs Act, 1962 and held that mens rea must be established for confiscation and penalty. 18. In the facts and circumstance of the instant case, the above decision rendered in the case of Akbar Badrudin Giwani does not apply. As pointed out earlier, show cause notice was issued to the appellant not only for holding of excess stock with the intention to clear the goods clandestinely and evade payment of central excise duty but also for deliberately mis-stating the production figures in RG-1 Register and filing of returns giving false production figures. It cannot, therefore, be contended that the show cause notice was issued only for violation of Rules 53 and 54. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the submission that Rule 173Q and Rule 209 being a penal clause, intention is in-built in it and therefore, mens rea is an essential ingredient to attract the Rules. It was submitted that Rule 173Q could not be legally invoked against the appellant merely on account of failure to maintain the accounts and that Revenue has to prove the intention of the appellant for clandestine removal of goods. Rule 173Q deals with confiscation and penalty and Rule 209 deals with penalty provision. Rule 173Q – confiscation and penalty – arise under breach of duty provided in the Central Excise Act and Central Excise Rules, which creates strict liability without proof of mens rea. As per Rule 173G(4)(a), every assessee to maintain such accounts, as the Commissioner may from time to time require of the production. Rule 53 deals with daily stock account and Rule 54 deals with monthly returns. Non-maintaining of accounts and non-accounting of the manufactured goods in the statutory records attracts the provision of Rule 173Q – confiscation and penalty. 19. As per Rule 173G(4)(a), every assessee to maintain such accounts, as the Commissioner may from time to time require of the production. Rule 53 deals with daily stock account and Rule 54 deals with monthly returns. Non-maintaining of accounts and non-accounting of the manufactured goods in the statutory records attracts the provision of Rule 173Q – confiscation and penalty. 19. Unless there is something in the language of the statute indicating the need to establish the element of mens rea, it is generally sufficient to show that a default to comply with the Rules has occurred attracting confiscation and penal provisions. There is nothing in Rule 173Q or Rule 209, which required that mens rea/intention need to be established. The Court cannot read anything into the statutory provisions or stipulated conditions, which are plain and unambiguous. The Legislature used the conjunction “or” in Rule 173Q for Rule 173Q(1)(a) and Rule 173Q(1)(d), the Court cannot read into Rule 173Q(1)(b) that there should be the intention to evade payment of excise duty. There is no merit in the contention of the appellant that mens rea of the appellant to remove the manufactured goods with intention to evade payment is essential. 20. The appellant had not accounted for the manufactured goods and had not made entries in RG-1 Register. Non-accounting of manufactured goods in the statutory records falls within the ambit of Rules 173Q(1)(b) – provision of confiscation and penalty and the substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had taken a lenient view reducing the redemption fine to Rs.3 lakhs and also penalty to Rs.3 lakhs. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. This appeal is thus dismissed.