2010 (1) TMI 1064 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Shortage of goods and duty imposition
2. Truck carrying goods outside factory
3. Levy of excise duty based on breakdown report

Analysis:

Shortage of goods and duty imposition:
The appellant challenged the imposition of duty amounting to Rs. 8,247 due to a minor shortage of goods detected during investigation. The appellant argued that the duty was imposed without proper evaluation of evidence. However, the tribunal found no evidence presented by the appellant to prove that the shortage was not due to their control. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the duty demand and penalties, as the appellant failed to substantiate their claim.

Truck carrying goods outside factory:
Regarding the goods found in a truck outside the factory, the appellant claimed that the goods were meant for weighment in Dharamkanta before dispatch. The driver's statement supported this claim, stating that he was instructed by the factory employee to get the goods weighed outside. The tribunal found no evidence contradicting this statement and reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000, as the goods were not proven to be surplus or involved in clandestine removal.

Levy of excise duty based on breakdown report:
The appellant disputed the levy of excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,31,557 based on a breakdown report indicating discrepancies in production quantities. The appellant argued that the breakdown report, prepared by laborers, was not conclusive evidence of suppression of manufacture. The tribunal examined the report and noted discrepancies between the finished goods recorded and the work in progress. Without substantial evidence linking the discrepancies to suppression of manufacture, the tribunal annulled the duty demand and waived the penalty.

Conclusion:
The tribunal confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 8,247 due to a shortage of goods, reduced the redemption fine for goods carried outside the factory, and annulled the duty demand of Rs. 11,31,557 based on the breakdown report. Individual penalties were also waived due to lack of evidence of mala fide intent. Overall, the appeal was allowed in part, providing relief to the appellants on specific issues.