2014 (3) TMI 637 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Excess clearance by SSI unit after exhausting the limit of one crore - Confiscation of the excess found goods along with imposition of penalties - The main contention of the appellant is that their factory was visited by the officers on 20.3.2007 and they had already filed an application before the authorities for registration vide their application dated 22.2.2007. - Held that - If the appellants have filed an application, as contended by them for registration of their unit, which had crossed the exemption limit, I find that subsequent actions of the Revenue in confiscating the excess found goods and imposing penalties upon them is not justifiable. By extending the benefit of doubt to them on the point of filing of application for registration, I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty payment on excess clearance
2. Confiscation of goods
3. Imposition of penalties
4. Registration application dispute

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing marble slabs and tiles, was visited by the Anti-evasion team of Central Excise, leading to the discovery of irregularities in their records. The appellant was required to pay duty on excess clearance, which was confirmed in the impugned order along with penalties and confiscation of goods. The appellant contested the duty payment, citing timely filing of a registration application and compliance with duty payment deadlines under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules.

2. The lower authorities rejected the appellant's claim of filing a registration application, questioning the authenticity of the signatures on the application. The appellant maintained that the application was submitted to the Range office and bore valid signatures, shifting the burden of proof regarding signature authenticity to the authorities. The dispute over the registration application played a crucial role in determining the justification for confiscation of goods and penalty imposition.

3. The appellate tribunal, considering the appellant's submission of filing a registration application and the doubts raised over signature verification, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. The tribunal found the Revenue's actions of confiscation and penalty imposition unjustifiable in light of the registration application issue. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the issues of duty payment on excess clearance, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, and the dispute regarding the registration application. The tribunal's decision to overturn the impugned order was based on the appellant's submission of filing a registration application, casting doubt on the justification for penalties and confiscation by the Revenue.