2007 (4) TMI 63 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation fine and penalty - Revenue contended that the there is excess quantity of inputs in factory premises was made for clandestine removal and accordingly demand were made alongwith fine and penalty - Held that the revenue contention was not correct and allow the appeal

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order setting aside the adjudication order regarding excess stock of ingots.
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalties on the respondents.
- Allegations of clandestine removal of excess ingots.
- Arguments regarding lack of evidence for clandestine removal.
- Interpretation of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
- Comparison with relevant Tribunal decisions.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals by the Revenue against an order setting aside an adjudication order concerning excess stock of ingots by the respondents, who were engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products. The central excise officers had found 11.807 MT of excess ingots at the factory premises, leading to the confiscation of the goods and imposition of fines and penalties. The Revenue contended that the excess ingots were intended for clandestine removal, justifying the penalties. However, the respondents argued that the allegations were based on assumptions without evidence of clandestine removal. They cited Tribunal decisions to support their position, including the case of Gulab Chand Silk Mills v. CCE, Hyderabad.

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and examined the record. It was noted that the respondents admitted the discrepancy was due to not verifying the stock for a month, a fact acknowledged by the respondent No. 2 as well. The adjudicating authority did not refute this admission. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice's allegation of intended clandestine removal lacked material or evidence, making it unsustainable. Referencing the case of Gulab Chand Silk Mills, the Tribunal concluded that confiscation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was not justified for unaccounted raw materials. Therefore, the confiscation of ingots and penalties were set aside, in line with the Tribunal's precedent.

The Tribunal emphasized that the allegation of intended clandestine removal was baseless and conjectural, supporting the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to set aside the adjudication order. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected, as there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and legal interpretation in determining the validity of penalties and confiscation in excise cases, reinforcing the need for substantiated allegations rather than assumptions.