2004 (9) TMI 554 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Adjustment of excesses and shortages of iron & steel products at stockyards/depots based on CBEC's Circular, applicability of the Circular to depots, dispensation of duty and penalty.

Adjustment of Excesses and Shortages:
The appellant, represented by Dr. Samir Chakraborty, argued for the adjustment of excesses and shortages of iron & steel products at stockyards/depots based on CBEC's Circular No. 486/52/99-CX dated 23-9-1999. Referring to the Circular's procedure for handling variations in quantity between despatch from plants and final sale from stockyards/depots, the appellant highlighted a shortage of 590.09 M.Ts. during the disputed period. Citing the Tribunal's decision in a previous case, the appellant contended that excess should be set-off against shortages. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found merit in the appellant's arguments and dispensed with the duty and penalty imposed on the appellant company, thereby resolving this issue in favor of the appellant.

Applicability of Circular to Depots:
During the hearing, the Revenue representative, Shri J.R. Madhiam, reiterated the Commissioner's order and argued that the CBEC's Circular in question applied only to depots and was prospective in nature. However, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides, acknowledged the strength of the appellant's contentions. Consequently, the Tribunal dispensed with the duty and penalty imposed on the appellant company, indicating that the Circular's applicability to depots did not impact the decision to waive the duty and penalty.

Dispensation of Duty and Penalty:
After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had made a compelling case for dispensation of the duty and penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dispense with the duty and penalty imposed on the first appellant company, M/s. TISCO, as well as the penalty on the second appellant company, M/s. Tinplate Company of India Ltd. The Tribunal disposed of both Stay Petitions in favor of the appellants, setting the next hearing for a specified date. This issue was resolved in favor of the appellants based on the Tribunal's assessment of the arguments presented during the proceedings.