2008 (1) TMI 276 - AT - Central Excise

Assessee job-worker presence of men area is not required to confiscate the goods in case goods are found lying unaccounted - Moulds removed from the factory premises of the appellants following the job work procedure as was laid down in Not. No.214/86 cannot be called as clandestinely removed as per not. 214/86 supplier of the raw materials should undertake the responsibility of discharging the liabilities Excise duty arising out of job working- so demand on job-worker is not justified

Summary

Issues:
- Duty non-debit in PLA
- Clearance of finished goods without duty payment
- Manufacture and clearance of moulds without duty payment
- Confiscation of moulds from factory premises
- Confiscation of unaccounted finished goods
- Imposition of penalties

Duty non-debit in PLA:
The appellants accepted the duty liability for not debiting the PLA due to bounced cheques, depositing the amount with the revenue, and not challenging the demand. The tribunal upheld the duty demand, considering no intention for clandestine clearance, and imposed a reduced penalty due to mitigating circumstances.

Clearance of finished goods without duty payment:
The appellants acknowledged the duty liability for goods cleared to their own unit, citing space constraints and a genuine belief of duty exemption for inter-unit transfers. They paid the duty and requested leniency in penalty imposition, which the tribunal considered, upholding the duty demand and reducing the penalty.

Manufacture and clearance of moulds without duty payment:
Regarding moulds manufactured and cleared to another entity, the appellants operated as job workers under a notification requiring the principal manufacturer to discharge duty liabilities. The tribunal found the duty demand on appellants unsustainable, as the principal manufacturer undertook duty responsibilities, leading to setting aside the duty demand.

Confiscation of moulds from factory premises:
Confiscation of moulds alleged as clandestinely removed was deemed unsustainable as statutory clearance documents were in place, indicating legitimate removal. The tribunal set aside the confiscation due to proper documentation supporting the removal.

Confiscation of unaccounted finished goods:
Unaccounted finished goods in the factory premises were subject to confiscation, upheld by the tribunal based on statutory recording obligations, irrespective of intent. The redemption fine was reduced, considering excessive imposition.

Imposition of penalties:
Penalties under Section 11AC were imposed for various violations, with the tribunal setting aside penalties related to duty liability on moulds and reducing penalties for non-debit in PLA and clearance of finished goods. The penalty on unaccounted goods was upheld, but other penalties on the appellant firm were set aside. The penalty on the partner was also set aside following a relevant High Court judgment.

In conclusion, the tribunal disposed of the appeals, upholding duty demands in certain instances, setting aside duty demands and confiscations in others, and adjusting penalties based on circumstances and legal provisions.