2006 (12) TMI 393 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Confiscation of goods cleared without duty payment, demand confirmation, penalties imposition, adjustment of goods found outside the factory, excessive penalty claim.

Confiscation of Goods Cleared Without Duty Payment:
The appellant appealed against an order confiscating goods cleared without duty payment and imposing penalties. The appellant argued that certain terry towels were cleared without duty payment, and the duty-paid towels were also confiscated for allegedly concealing the clandestinely cleared goods. The Revenue contended that excess terry towels found in a tempo were liable for confiscation. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument regarding the confiscation of excess goods outside the factory. However, it ruled that duty-paid goods could not be confiscated for concealing clandestinely cleared goods as they were the same type of goods found in excess in the tempo. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of duty-paid goods.

Demand Confirmation and Penalty Imposition:
The Revenue confirmed the demand for shortage of terry towels in the factory, stating that the appellant failed to provide any explanation. The Tribunal upheld the demand as the appellant did not demonstrate that the goods were cleared with duty payment. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument of excessive penalty, noting shortages in finished goods in the factory and non-duty paid goods outside. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's claim of excessive penalty.

Adjustment of Goods Found Outside the Factory:
The appellant requested an adjustment of goods found outside the factory against the shortage in the factory. However, the Revenue pointed out discrepancies in the quantities, leading the Tribunal to reject the adjustment. The Tribunal held that the adjustment could not be made due to the mismatch between goods found outside and the shortage in the factory.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the confiscation of duty-paid goods for concealing clandestinely cleared goods, setting it aside. However, it upheld the confiscation of excess goods found outside the factory. The Tribunal confirmed the demand for shortage in the factory due to the appellant's failure to provide evidence of duty payment. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim of excessive penalty, considering shortages in finished goods and non-duty paid goods. The request for adjusting goods found outside the factory against the factory shortage was also denied due to quantity discrepancies.