2015 (6) TMI 1082 - AT - Central Excise

Shortage of stock during investigation - Penalty under Rule 25 - Held that - the Central Excise duty attributable to the shortage quantity of the finished goods has been paid by the appellant on the basis of its own ascertainment and nothing further is payable on account of duty or interest - The statement recorded from the appellant that due to storage problem, the finished goods were kept outside the factory was not refuted either by the preventive officers or the adjudicating authority - Decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Central Excise Duty liability on shortage of finished goods
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002

Central Excise Duty Liability on Shortage of Finished Goods:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing PSC sleepers, facing a shortage of 2,600 PSC sleepers during an investigation by Preventive Officers of the Central Excise Department. The appellant, due to a lack of storage space, stored goods outside the factory, leading to the duty attributable to the shortage being paid on the same day of investigation. The adjudication order confirmed a Central Excise Duty of &8377;3,64,208, which was paid by the appellant and an equal penalty was imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order. The Tribunal considered that the duty liability was deposited before the show cause notice, and as per Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, no further payment was required. The appellant's explanation of storage issues was accepted, indicating no intent to evade duty. Consequently, the penalty was deemed improper, and the imposition was held to be not legal.

Imposition of Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid the duty liability before the issuance of the show cause notice, fulfilling the requirements of Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act. The statement regarding the storage issue was uncontested by the authorities, indicating no deliberate evasion of duty. As per the statutory provisions, the penalty imposed was considered unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and holding that the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not legal due to the payment of duty liability and lack of evidence of intent to evade duty.