2015 (1) TMI 126 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods - Discrepancy in the weight of goods mentioned in the invoice - Statement of Shri Roop Chand, authorised representative was recorded and it was explained by him that the difference of 5 MT is on account of wrong recording of weight by the computerised slip. He explained that the weight was wrongly taken as 22.310 MT instead of 27.310 MT which is due to mis-print in the figure of computer kanta in gross weight - Held that - Discrepancy in the weight of the ingots was explained by authorised representative, immediately after the seizure. The same occurred on account of misleading of the computerised weight, which can be on account of a human error. As such, by extending the benefit of doubt I set aside the impugned order in so far the same relates to confiscation of goods and truck and the imposition of penalty on the appellant - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues: Confiscation of goods, confiscation of the truck, imposition of penalty.

Confiscation of Goods: The case involved the interception of a truck carrying MS ingots with a weight discrepancy between the invoice and the actual weight of the goods. The officers conducted a physical verification and found a shortage of 5 MT of ingots, which matched the excess weight loaded in the truck. The authorized representative explained that the discrepancy was due to a misprint in the computerized weight recording, leading to a wrong reading. The appellant agreed to deposit the differential duty amount. The original adjudicating authority confiscated the goods but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order.

Confiscation of the Truck: Along with the goods, the truck was also subject to confiscation in the proceedings. The impugned order confiscated the truck with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine. The appellant challenged this confiscation, arguing that the weight discrepancy was due to a computerized weight error. The Member (J) found that the discrepancy was likely a result of human error in recording the weight, giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order regarding the confiscation of the truck was set aside.

Imposition of Penalty: In addition to the confiscation of goods and the truck, a penalty was imposed on the appellant. The penalty amount was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. However, after considering the explanations provided and the nature of the discrepancy, the Member (J) set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The decision was based on the understanding that the weight discrepancy was likely a result of a genuine error rather than intentional misconduct, warranting the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the explanations provided, set aside the impugned order related to the confiscation of goods and the truck, as well as the imposition of penalties on the appellant. The decision was made based on the acknowledgment of a potential human error in the computerized weight recording process, leading to the discrepancy in the weight of the ingots. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, providing relief from the confiscation and penalties imposed.