1980 (9) TMI 277 - Board - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty and observance of Central Excise formalities; Imposition of penalty on the appellants; Verification process conducted by Central Excise Officers; Compliance with Central Excise laws and maintenance of records; Prosecution launched against the appellants; Examination of evidence and statements by the Judicial Magistrate; Benefit of doubt in favor of the appellants.

In this case, the issue revolved around the alleged clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty and observance of Central Excise formalities by the appellants, leading to the imposition of a penalty. Central Excise Officers found a shortage of specific tins of vegetable product during a physical verification at the factory, which prompted the allegations. The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 on the appellants in addition to demanding duty on the missing goods. The appellants contended that the goods were either present in the packing room or had been removed for re-processing with prior intimation to the Central Excise Sector Officer. They argued that the verification was limited to the EB-4 store room and not conducted thoroughly across all factory sections. The appellants highlighted discrepancies in the verification process and pointed out the confirmation by the Liaison Officer regarding the goods' status.

Moreover, the appellants claimed compliance with Central Excise laws by maintaining a single account in the RG-I as required, rather than a separate EB-4 Register. They also mentioned the prosecution launched against them, which resulted in the Judicial Magistrate exonerating them of the charge. The Board carefully considered the written and oral submissions made by the appellants' representatives during the appeal hearing. The Board noted that the physical verification was limited to the EB-4 godown and acknowledged the appellants' request for re-processing permission, which seemed to have been granted. Statements from inspectors revealed that thorough stock verification was not conducted in all factory sections during the offense booking.

Furthermore, the Board observed the lack of additional evidence to substantiate the alleged clandestine removal. It noted the absence of efforts to record the factory manager's statement or gather evidence from private records or independent sources. The Punjab National Bank's certificate confirmed the issuance of goods to the appellants on the day of the offense. Considering these facts, the Board found that the allegations against the appellants were not proven beyond doubt. Consequently, the Board granted the benefit of doubt to the appellants, setting aside the original order and allowing the appeal.