2004 (5) TMI 388 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess inputs and redemption fine imposed.
2. Confiscation of ACC & ANT conductors on job work basis.

Issue 1: Confiscation of Excess Inputs and Redemption Fine:
The appellants contested the impugned order regarding the confiscation and redemption fine imposed on excess inputs. They argued that the steel wire purchased for manufacturing conductors was not entered in their statutory record, but no Modvat credit was availed on the duty paid. Citing a Tribunal decision, they claimed that such unrecorded inputs are not liable for confiscation. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the confiscation of the steel wire as it was not entered in stock and no duty credit was taken. The appellants did not contest other demands confirmed by the order.

Issue 2: Confiscation of ACC & ANT Conductors on Job Work Basis:
Regarding the confiscation of ACC & ANT conductors manufactured on job work basis, the Revenue argued that the appellants failed to maintain proper records or provide intimation for sending goods for job work. However, it was acknowledged that the goods were indeed manufactured on job work basis. The appellants contended that the intimation responsibility lay with M/s. H.M. Conductors, the supplier of materials. They presented job work challans and maintained records of the activity. The Tribunal found that the confiscation of these goods was unsustainable as the goods were returned, job work receipts were produced, and the necessary intimation was the responsibility of the supplier, not the present appellant. Consequently, the confiscation of ACC & ANT conductors was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed two main issues: the confiscation of excess inputs and the redemption fine imposed, as well as the confiscation of ACC & ANT conductors manufactured on job work basis. In the first issue, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the confiscation of steel wire used for manufacturing conductors as it was not entered in their stock and no duty credit was availed. The appellants did not contest other demands confirmed in the order. In the second issue, the Tribunal found that the confiscation of ACC & ANT conductors was unsustainable due to the lack of proper records and intimation for sending goods for job work, which was the responsibility of the supplier. The goods were returned, job work receipts were provided, and the necessary intimation was not the duty of the present appellant. Consequently, the confiscation of ACC & ANT conductors was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.