2004 (4) TMI 324 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against confirmation of duty, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposition.

Confirmation of Duty:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal confirming duty, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposition. The appellant argued that proper verification of raw material was not conducted by Central Excise officers, and duty could not be confirmed without allegations of clandestine removal. The JDR supported the impugned order, stating duty was rightly confirmed due to Modvat credit on the short raw material. The tribunal noted that no enquiry was made about raw materials in the process, and no allegations of clandestine removal were in the show cause notice. The statement of the firm's partner did not conclusively prove clandestine removal. The tribunal held that duty confirmation based on alleged raw material shortage was unsustainable as the process raw material was not considered, setting aside the duty confirmation.

Confiscation of Goods and Penalty Imposition:
Confiscation of finished goods was not contested, but the redemption fine was challenged as excessive. The tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 4,240 to Rs. 1,500. A penalty of Rs. 30,000 was imposed under various rules, which the tribunal found not applicable to the case. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 2,000, considering only the goods seized from the tempo. The redemption fine for the confiscated tempo was reduced to Rs. 5,000. The tribunal modified the impugned order, reducing the penalty and redemption fine accordingly. The appeal was disposed of in light of the discussions and modifications made.