2005 (9) TMI 390 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of duty, confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, disallowance of cenvat credit, and penalty.

Confirmation of Duty:
The appeal contested the duty confirmation due to a shortage of decorated bottles, but the appellants argued that the quantity of broken bottles cleared under duty paid invoices was not considered. The appellants provided challans as evidence of cullets cleared against duty paid invoices. No evidence of evasion was found, and no clandestine removal was alleged. Lack of proper physical verification of stock supported the appellants' claim. The duty confirmed based on eye examination was deemed unsustainable.

Confiscation of Goods:
Confiscation of decorated, reannealed, and unbranded bottles was challenged. The appellants were engaged in job work and printing on plain glass bottles. They followed a documented procedure for receiving, clearing, and reannealing bottles. The Revenue's objection to this procedure was rejected as no prior objection was raised. No evidence of clandestine removal post-reannealing was found. Confiscation based solely on production planning report without physical verification was deemed unsustainable.

Disallowance of Cenvat Credit:
Disallowed Modvat credit on unprinted glass bottles received under duty paid invoices was challenged. The appellants were entitled to claim credit on duty paid unprinted glass bottles as inputs. The disallowance was deemed unjustifiable under the law.

Imposition of Penalty:
No penalty could be imposed on the appellants based on the findings. The impugned order was set aside entirely, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.