2011 (8) TMI 625 - AT - Customs

Stock Taking in premises revealed a physical shortage of 2200.56 gms. of platinum - Assessee appealed entitled to wastage of 9% of the goods, waste dirt has recovered 623.4 grams of platinum which also has not been considered - Held That - Once the stocks are maintained taking into account the permissible loss, they cannot once again claim that they are entitled for the same as the shortage found. As regards the recovery of 691.26 gms of platinum recovered from the refining of dust/slurry, it is seen from the order that the Commissioner has already allowed a quantity of 475 gms of platinum which was recovered; in other words the shortage of 2200.56 gms. of platinum has been computed after taking into account the recovery of 475 gms.Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on shortage of platinum during stock-taking.
2. Imposition of penalty under Customs Act.
3. Entitlement for adjustments towards wastage.
4. Recovery of platinum from refining process.
5. Computation of duty demanded.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a duty demand of Rs.4,44,783/- on a shortage of 2200.56 gms of platinum found during a stock-taking exercise conducted by SEEPZ-SEZ Customs. The appellant had admitted the shortage and discharged the duty liability. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,11,196/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant challenged this order.

2. The appellant claimed entitlement for adjustments towards wastage, citing a policy provision allowing for 9% wastage of goods consumed. They also mentioned recovering 623.40 gms of platinum from waste, which was not considered in the shortage calculation. However, the department argued that the appellant had admitted the shortage in a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act and had already paid the duty, thus precluding further adjustments.

3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's records already accounted for the permissible wastage of 9%. Any additional claims for wastage after the shortage was found were deemed inadmissible. The recovery of platinum from refining was partially considered by the Commissioner, but the appellant failed to provide evidence for the remaining quantity claimed. The appellant's contention on duty calculation errors was dismissed as it was not raised earlier in the proceedings.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's appeal and upheld the duty demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed, concluding the case.

This detailed analysis covers the duty demand, penalty imposition, entitlement for adjustments, recovery of platinum, and computation of duty demanded, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment.