2009 (5) TMI 773 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of goods seized from tractor trolly
- Duty demand on shortage of finished goods
- Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC

Confiscation of goods seized from tractor trolly:
The case involved an appeal against an order confirming the confiscation of M.S. Bars seized from a tractor trolly along with the tractor. The appellant's argument was that the goods were taken out for weighment purposes but were being delivered to another premises due to misunderstanding. The appellant contended that the confiscation was unjustified. However, the tribunal found that the goods had been cleared clandestinely without an invoice, leading to the correct confiscation of the goods and the tractor trolly.

Duty demand on shortage of finished goods:
The appellant also challenged the duty demand imposed for a shortage of 24.618 m.t. of finished goods detected during stock checking. The appellant argued that the shortage was due to daily recording of weights on an estimation basis, not actual weighment. The tribunal, however, agreed with the respondent's assertion that such a significant shortage could not be attributed to recording errors alone. Additionally, the nature of M.S. Bars as an evasion-prone item further raised suspicions. The tribunal upheld the duty demand due to lack of satisfactory explanations for the clandestine removal of goods and the detected shortage.

Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC:
Lastly, the appellant contested the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The tribunal noted the absence of satisfactory explanations for the clandestine removal of goods and the significant shortage detected. Given the nature of the goods and the circumstances, the tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods seized from the tractor trolly, the duty demand on the shortage of finished goods, and the penalty under Section 11AC. The appellant's arguments regarding misunderstandings and recording practices were deemed insufficient to counter the suspicions of clandestine activities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.