2012 (5) TMI 528 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Shortage in stock - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that - In this type of cases involving shortages of stock of raw materials found during stock taking, it is not proper to go by the statements recorded alone. When prolonged stock taking is done in a factory, the factory authorities are under pressure due to disruption in their work and they may agree to shortages so long as the quantities are small. Issues of accounting errors also may arise which they may not be able to point out on the spot. So the argument that once the shortage is admitted, there should not be any further argument about it cannot be accepted as a general rule. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in stock of raw materials
- Duty demand and penalties imposed
- Appeal against duty demand and penalties

Analysis:
1. Discrepancy in stock of raw materials:
- The case involved a manufacturer of Bar, Rods, and Wire Rod coils of Mild Steel where officers of Revenue found discrepancies in the stock of raw materials, specifically MS Ingots and Furnace Oil, during a surprise visit.
- The officers alleged that the shortage in raw materials indicated clandestine clearance, leading to a duty demand on the goods found short.
- The appellant argued that the discrepancies were due to an approximate method of stock estimation and that there was no evidence of clandestine removal of goods.

2. Duty demand and penalties imposed:
- A Show Cause notice was issued, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 2,08,311/- and imposing penalties under Section 11AC of the Act and specific rules on the assessee.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the duty demand but set aside the penalties as duty was paid before the notice.
- The appellant filed an appeal against the duty demand, while the Revenue appealed against the setting aside of penalties.

3. Appeal against duty demand and penalties:
- The Counsel for the appellant argued that the discrepancies were due to the method of stock estimation and not clandestine removal.
- The Revenue contended that an authorized signatory of the company accepted the shortages and agreed to pay duty during the stock taking.
- The Tribunal considered the arguments and gave the benefit of doubt to the appellants, noting the approximate methods of stock estimation and lack of evidence of clandestine clearance.
- Consequently, the appeal by the assessee was allowed, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal for penalties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, finding in favor of the appellant due to doubts regarding the stock discrepancies and the absence of concrete evidence of clandestine removal. The decision highlighted the importance of considering various factors in cases involving stock shortages and emphasized the need for substantial proof before confirming duty demands.