2008 (5) TMI 545 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Seizure of goods without duty paying documents, shortage of inputs, duty demand on finished goods, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Seizure of Goods without Duty Paying Documents: The Central Excise Officers intercepted a truck loaded with CTD Bars without accompanying duty paying documents. The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties and demanded duty, contending that the invoices produced later were an afterthought. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the seized goods were duty paid, and thus, the confiscation and penalties were deemed unsustainable.

Shortage of Inputs: During stock verification, a shortage of M.S. Ingots was found at the Respondent's factory. The Respondent debited the duty on the shortage of inputs. The Adjudicating Authority demanded duty on finished goods, alleging conversion of the inputs into finished goods and clandestine removal. However, the Respondent reversed the Credit on the shortage of inputs before the show cause notice was issued, leading to the conclusion that the duty demand and penalty under Section 11AC were unwarranted.

Duty Demand on Finished Goods: The Revenue contended that the Respondent voluntarily paid duty on the CTD Bars without proper explanation, and the Commissioner (Appeals) ordering a refund of any excess amount paid was improper. However, the Tribunal found no basis for interfering with the Commissioner's order, as the duty payment was found to be regular.

Penalty under Section 11AC: The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, equal to the amount of duty demanded. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence to support the conversion of shortage of inputs into finished goods and clandestine removal. Citing a precedent, it was established that penalty under Section 11AC is not leviable when duty is paid before the issuance of a show cause notice.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting duty demand on finished goods and the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. The appeal was dismissed on 2-5-2008.