2007 (5) TMI 15 - AT - Central Excise

Demand and Penalty Different allegation such as excess of finished goods found in factory, confiscation of scrap, removal of excess metal to their sister unit and accordingly duty and penalty demanded Held that the allegation on appellant was not correct

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand based on excess stock found during in-house inventories.
2. Confiscation of unaccounted scrap with an option for redemption.
3. Alleged removal of excess metal to the appellant's own unit.
4. Imposition of penalties on the company and its officers.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellants contested the duty demand of Rs. 19,91,222/-, arguing that the excess material found during their own inventory exercise within the factory premises should not be the basis for duty demand unless there is evidence of removal without payment. The Commissioner accepted explanations for alleged shortages but confirmed demands for excess quantities lacking explanations. The appellants acknowledged duty payment upon removal but contested penalties.

Issue 2:
Regarding the confiscation of unaccounted scrap, the appellants explained their scrap management practices to the department. Despite the Commissioner's acknowledgment of the scrap being estimated and the reasons for excess, the confiscation was solely due to non-accounting in statutory records. The appellants argued against any intention to evade duty, as most scrap was used internally without duty implications.

Issue 3:
The demand of Rs. 2,64,385/- for alleged excess metal supply to their Kalwa unit was due to discrepancies in spool weights, resulting in unintentional excess supply. The Commissioner recognized no intent to evade duty, attributing the difference to spool weights. The appellants contested penalties imposed on the company and its officers.

Issue 4:
Penalties imposed on the company and its officers were challenged, emphasizing the lack of evidence establishing intent to evade duty. The appellants highlighted dropped shortage demands and explained excess scraps due to estimated recording, arguing against penalties.

The Tribunal upheld duty demands uncontested by the appellants but set aside confiscation orders, redemption fines, and penalties on the company and its officers. The judgment emphasized the absence of evidence supporting duty evasion intentions and the acceptance of explanations for discrepancies in stock and scrap management practices.