2008 (2) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Difference in invoices & delivery challans in invoices, only number of drums are shown but in challans, number of lids & bottoms are also shown no evidence produced by revenue of collection of extra money for lids or bottom so demand is not justified confiscation on ground that Lids & Bottom of drums are not accounted in RG-1 register, is justified - demand can t be challenged by assessee mere for non-mentioning of sub-clause of Rule 173Q in SCN appeal partly allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on lids/bottom not mentioned in central excise invoice
2. Duty demand on containers cleared without payment
3. Duty demand on metal scrap not accounted for
4. Confiscation of unaccounted lids/bottoms
5. Penalty imposition under various clauses

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellants were found to clear lids/bottoms along with metal containers without mentioning them in the central excise invoice. A show cause notice was issued for duty demand amounting to Rs. 12,48,509. The appellant argued that lids were packed separately and the delivery challan indicated the total number of packages correctly. The Tribunal noted that the number of lids and containers cleared matched, and the price on the invoice aligned with the purchase order. The demand of Rs. 12,48,509 was set aside based on the evidence presented.

Issue 2:
The appellant was also found clearing containers without paying central excise duty, claiming them as replacements for defective goods. Duty demand of Rs. 1,10,854.62 was upheld as the appellant did not contest this demand.

Issue 3:
Duty was demanded on metal scrap not accounted for during the manufacturing process, amounting to Rs. 10,530. This demand was upheld as the appellant did not contest it due to lack of records.

Issue 4:
Unaccounted lids/bottoms were found in the factory premises, leading to confiscation. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and imposition of a fine, reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 25,000 due to excessive penalty.

Issue 5:
Penalty was imposed under Section 11AC, interest under Section 11AB, and confiscation of unaccounted goods was ordered. The penalty under Section 11AC was reduced to Rs. 1,21,384 from the original amount due to the setting aside of the demand related to lids/bottoms. The liability to interest on this demand was upheld at the applicable rate.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the demand related to lids/bottoms not mentioned in the central excise invoice, upheld other duty demands not contested by the appellant, confirmed the duty demand on unaccounted metal scrap, and upheld the confiscation of unaccounted goods with a reduced redemption fine. The penalty under Section 11AC was reduced, and interest liability was upheld.