1999 (7) TMI 625 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-maintenance of statutory Central Excise records leading to confiscation of goods, imposition of fine, and penalty.
2. Dispute regarding non-debiting of entries in RG.23A/Pt.II or PLA.
3. Alleged contravention of Rule 173Q(1)(6) and Rule 150 for non-accountal of final product, M.S. Billets.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Non-maintenance of statutory Central Excise records
The case involved a situation where the appellant failed to maintain proper Central Excise records, leading to the discovery of discrepancies during a visit by Excise Officers. The adjudicating authority confiscated seized goods, imposed a fine in lieu of confiscation, and confirmed the duty amount. The appellant's appeal against this decision was unsuccessful.

Issue 2: Dispute regarding non-debiting of entries in RG.23A/Pt.II or PLA
The appellant argued that the non-debiting of entries was due to the absence of the clerk responsible for clearance of goods, resulting in a lack of awareness about Central Excise procedures by the replacement clerk. The appellant contended that there was no intention to evade duty, attributing the errors to improper account maintenance beyond their control. The appellant also challenged the justification for the fine imposed and argued against the confiscation of goods provisionally released.

Issue 3: Alleged contravention of Rule 173Q(1)(6) and Rule 150
The JDR maintained that the non-debiting of entries and non-accountal of final products constituted a clear contravention of relevant rules. The JDR highlighted the possibility of misuse of computer-generated invoices and emphasized the importance of following Central Excise procedures.

The judgment carefully considered both parties' arguments and found that the discrepancies were primarily technical errors due to staff absences and lack of familiarity with procedures. The Tribunal noted that the serial numbers of debit entries were available in the invoices, dispelling concerns about invoice misuse. It concluded that the contraventions were of a technical nature, leading to the decision that there was no justification for the confiscation of goods or the imposition of a penalty. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant.