2004 (3) TMI 504 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in final order, consideration of jurisdiction plea under Section 33 of Central Excise Act, admissibility of unsigned statements, liability for confiscation of unaccounted goods found in factory.

Analysis:
1. Rectification of Mistake in Final Order:
The applicants sought rectification of a mistake in the Final Order, arguing that the plea of jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Central Excise Act was not considered during the passing of the final order. They contended that statements not signed by excise officers are inadmissible under the Act. However, the Tribunal found that the issue at hand was whether unaccounted goods found in the factory were liable for confiscation. Relying on precedents like the Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. case and the Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that goods not entered in statutory records were subject to confiscation, and the manufacturer could face penal action. The appellants did not raise the jurisdiction issue in their grounds of appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, and the Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent error on record necessitating rectification.

2. Consideration of Jurisdiction Plea and Admissibility of Statements:
The applicants argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the plea of jurisdiction and the admissibility of unsigned statements under the Central Excise Act. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellants did not raise the jurisdiction issue in their appeal grounds. The Tribunal's decision was based on the presence of excess goods in the factory, with the appellants contending that since the goods were found in the factory, they should not be liable for confiscation. The Tribunal, citing relevant High Court decisions, upheld the confiscation of goods not entered in statutory records. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application, finding no error on record warranting correction.

3. Liability for Confiscation of Unaccounted Goods:
The core issue revolved around the liability for confiscation of unaccounted goods discovered in the factory. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Bombay High Court and the Andhara Pradesh High Court, held that goods not reflected in statutory records were subject to confiscation, and the manufacturer could face penal consequences. The appellants did not dispute the presence of excess goods but argued that since the goods were located in the factory, confiscation should not apply. However, the Tribunal, considering the legal precedents, upheld the confiscation and penal action, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the rectification application due to the absence of any apparent error on record.