2005 (6) TMI 400 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against order vacating duty demand, method of estimation of shortage, applicability of normal allowance, reliance on case laws, restoration of duty demand, penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to a challenge against an order vacating a duty demand of Rs. 1,04,133/- confirmed against the assessee by the lower authority. The respondents were involved in manufacturing CTD Bars, CATS Bars, Wire Rods, etc. A shortage of 52 MTs of CTD bars valuing over Rs. 6.50 lakhs was found during a stock verification by Central Excise officers, attracting central excise duty. The method of estimation of shortage involved physically weighing one lot of CTD bars and multiplying the weight with the number of lots, with the party's consent. The original authority upheld the duty demand and imposed a penalty, which was later vacated by the first appellate authority based on the nature of goods and normal allowance in weight fluctuations. The Revenue challenged this decision.

Upon examination, the tribunal found that the method of estimation of shortage accepted by the party was valid. The lower appellate authority's decision to grant "normal allowance" without considering the admissibility to goods like CTD bars was deemed incorrect. Reference was made to case laws to support the decision. The tribunal differentiated the present case from precedents where actual weighment was not conducted, emphasizing that the admitted shortage of 52 MTs of CTD bars was conclusive evidence of removal without duty payment. Consequently, the duty demand was restored, but the penalty imposed was deemed unsustainable as duty was paid before the show cause notice.

In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed, restoring the duty demand while setting aside the penalty. The judgment highlights the importance of proper estimation methods, adherence to precedents, and the conclusive nature of admitted shortages in excisable goods.