2006 (9) TMI 394 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order setting aside confiscation and penalties imposed on the respondent.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was against an order dated 27th February 2004, where the revenue contested the decision setting aside the confiscation and penalties imposed on the respondent. The case stemmed from a visit by Central Excise officers to the respondent's factory, where discrepancies in stock were noted. The officers found unaccounted cushions and P.U. Foam Blocks during the visit. A show cause notice was issued, leading to penalties and confiscation. The Commissioner (Appeal) later reduced the penalties and set aside the confiscation. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner, who again set aside the confiscation and reduced the penalties further. The revenue appealed against this decision.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the confiscation based on specific observations. The Commissioner highlighted that the goods had not reached the final marketable stage, indicating they were not meant for clandestine removal. The Tribunal also considered the appellant director's statement, where it was admitted that the excess stock of cushions had not been entered in the registers as they were yet to be packed according to customer specifications. Without contrary evidence from the revenue, the Tribunal found the setting aside of confiscation by the Commissioner to be correct.

Regarding the P.U. Foam Blocks, the appellant maintained that these were intermediate products and not finished goods, hence not accounted for in the registers. The revenue failed to provide evidence of the appellant clearing these blocks from the factory. As a result, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's decision to set aside the confiscation on the P.U. Foam Blocks. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal and dismissed it.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to set aside the confiscation and penalties imposed on the respondent, based on the lack of evidence indicating any violation of Central Excise Law. The judgment was pronounced on 25th September 2006.