2005 (9) TMI 582 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposed on M/s. Swapna Sakar Steel Ltd., director, and administrative manager, along with challenge to confiscation of a truck with an option to redeem.

Analysis:

1. The central issue in this case pertains to the penalty of Rs. 50,000 each imposed on M/s. Swapna Sakar Steel Ltd., the director, and the administrative manager, as well as the confiscation of a truck with an option to redeem it on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000. The central excise officers observed a truck loaded with M.S. channels outside the factory gate of the company. Discrepancies were noted between the quantity mentioned in the invoice and the actual weighment, indicating a potential clandestine removal. The duty involved in the excess quantity was Rs. 7,941.

2. The appellants explained that they did not have a weighbridge on-site and initially prepared the central excise invoice based on estimation. Subsequently, the truck was taken to a nearby weighbridge for accurate measurement. Before the final invoice could be prepared, the truck was intercepted by officers. The duty amount was promptly debited by the appellants.

3. Additionally, during investigations, it was found that a certain quantity of scrap had been cleared without the duty being debited. The appellants attributed this to a mistake and rectified the error by debiting the duty immediately upon discovery.

4. The appellants contended that there was no intention of clandestine removal as duty payment was promptly made once discrepancies were identified. They relied on a Tribunal decision to support their argument that penalties and confiscation were unwarranted in such circumstances where duty payment was not evaded.

5. After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the goods were not removed clandestinely. It was noted that there was a trade notice allowing units in similar situations to take goods outside the factory for weighment purposes. Since duty was paid immediately upon identification of the discrepancies, the Tribunal found no basis for imposing penalties or confiscating the truck. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalties and redemption fine, ruling in favor of the appellants in all four appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellants did not engage in clandestine removal of goods as duty payment was promptly made upon detection of discrepancies. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalties and redemption fine was based on the lack of intention to evade duty and the immediate payment made by the appellants, in line with a previous Tribunal decision cited by the appellants' advocate.