2013 (11) TMI 951 - AT - Central Excise

Option of 25% reduced Penalty u/s 11AC of Central Excise Act 1944 Held that - There was no excess of 3505 kgs of copper rods and the same quantity was actually quantity of bars manufactured by the main appellant - if that quantity taken as excess is set off against the shortages, the net shortage comes to only 2480 kgs on which duty liability accepted by the main appellant comes to Rs.1,76,086/- after allowing cum-duty benefit - the option of 25% reduced penalty was not extended to the main appellant as per the provision of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - such an option should be specifically given by the adjudicating authority in the Order in Original and if not given, the same can be extended by the appellate authorities Thus the option of 25% reduced penalty available under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act is extended to the appellant if the same is paid within one month from the receipt of this order, as per the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. Imposition of penalty upon the second appellant Reduction of Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise rules, 2002 - Held that - He was well aware of the day to day activities of the main appellant and was also aware of the shortages - Being authorized signatory, he should have explained the shortages satisfactorily which have been accepted by the main appellant - but he could not do so, penalty is imposable upon him - the original duty demand reduced in these proceedings, hence the penalty on second appellant also reduced under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in stock found during verification
2. Separate entries in RG-1 register for copper bars and rods
3. Imposition of penalty on authorized signatory

Issue 1: Discrepancy in stock found during verification

The main appellant, engaged in manufacturing copper products, faced discrepancies during a stock verification where excess copper rods and bars were found. Statements from individuals involved differed on the nature of the excess goods seized. The appellant contested the excess quantity of copper rods, arguing that it was actually copper bars duly accounted for in the register. After adjustments, a shortage of 2480 kgs of copper bars was identified, and duty was paid accordingly. The appellant challenged the penalty imposed, citing a previous order that disputed the excess quantity of copper rods.

Issue 2: Separate entries in RG-1 register for copper bars and rods

The appellant argued that the excess quantity of copper rods found during verification was previously addressed in a separate show cause notice and subsequent order, reducing the actual shortage to 2480 kgs. The appellant contended that the duty payable on this adjusted quantity had already been settled. The appellant also claimed that the option of a reduced penalty under Section 11AC was not extended to them, seeking its application in their case.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty on authorized signatory

The authorized signatory of the main appellant faced penalty for failing to satisfactorily explain the shortages in stock, despite being aware of the day-to-day operations. The penalty was initially set at Rs. 20,000 but was reduced to Rs. 15,000 due to the revised duty demand. The reduction in penalty was based on the adjusted duty liability of Rs. 1,76,086. The appellate tribunal allowed both appeals, extending the option of a reduced penalty to the main appellant and reducing the penalty on the authorized signatory.

This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad addressed discrepancies in stock verification, the treatment of excess goods, and the imposition of penalties on individuals involved in the case. It clarified the adjustments made to account for the excess quantity of copper rods, ultimately identifying a shortage of copper bars. The tribunal extended the option of a reduced penalty to the appellants and reduced the penalty on the authorized signatory in light of the revised duty demand.