2006 (8) TMI 89 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods A number of cases alleged on appellant such as excess of raw material and non-maintenance of appropriate records of raw material Appellate authority after considering the detail allow the appeal partly

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty confirmed by lower appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The duty demand of Rs. 61,315/- on excess Borax Penta was set aside as the appellants demonstrated discrepancies in stock records, indicating no excess material. The confiscation of 16,370 kgs of Borax Penta was also annulled due to lack of evidence supporting the charge.

2. Duty demand of Rs. 20,800/- for a consignment was overturned as the relevant invoice, seized by the department, was not produced during adjudication. The matter was remanded to the lower appellate authority for reconsideration with the invoice now available for review.

3. Confiscation of 31,215 kgs of Ceramic Glazed Frit/Mixture was upheld due to non-accounting in the RG 1 Stock Register. However, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 85,000/- from Rs. 1,75,000/- considering the facts and the earlier annulment of Borax Penta confiscation.

4. Duty demand of Rs. 4,04,030/- for a raw material shortage was set aside as the evidence did not conclusively prove clandestine removal. The statements indicated improper record-keeping by the appellants, emphasizing the need for accurate accounts. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, including consideration of excess finished goods found.

5. The penalty of Rs. 4,86,145/- was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- due to sustained charges related to non-entry of finished goods and inadequate raw material records. The penalty reduction was deemed appropriate to serve justice.

6. The appeal was partially allowed, remanding the case to the lower appellate authority for a fresh decision on specific issues as outlined in the judgment.