2006 (10) TMI 273 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order confirming demand, penalty, and confiscation of seized goods.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute where the appellant's factory was visited by Central Excise officers who found excess finished goods not recorded in statutory records and duty not debited for clearances made. The appellant explained that entries were delayed due to the excise-in-charge's visit to the division office. The lower authorities upheld the demand and confiscation, leading to the appeal.

The appellant argued that the factory operated in continuous shifts, and entries were typically made the next day. The excise-in-charge's statement supported this, stating entries were made by 10:00 a.m. the next day. The appellant cited a Chief Commissioner's letter allowing entries before the end of the first shift of the next day. The Tribunal found the confiscation unsustainable due to procedural delays caused by the excise-in-charge's visit, thus setting it aside.

Regarding the duty not debited, it was confirmed that clearances were made late at night, and the duty was not debited due to late hours and not mala fide intent. Sufficient balance in records and immediate debiting of the duty supported the appellant's case. The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the penalty imposed on this ground, concluding that the impugned order related to confiscation and penalties was unsustainable and allowed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order confirming demand, penalty, and confiscation of seized goods, citing procedural delays and lack of mala fide intent for non-debiting of duty. The appellant's explanation regarding delayed entries due to continuous shifts was accepted, leading to the appeal being allowed.