2007 (2) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Officers verified the stock & found shortage accepted by appellant No evidence shown by appellant that request was made to officers for verification of goods lying in factory Duty demand is sustainable as it is based on statutory record not on extraneous material Penalty is reduced

Summary

Issues:
- Shortage and excess of finished goods detected during verification
- Demand of duty and imposition of penalty under Central Excise Act, 1944 and Central Excise Rules, 1944
- Allegation of clandestine removal of goods
- Appellants' submission regarding goods lying in finishing room
- Verification of stock by central excise officers
- Commissioner (Appeals) observations on duty demand and penalty imposition

Shortage and Excess of Finished Goods:
The central excise officers detected a shortage and excess of finished goods during a factory visit, leading to the confirmation of a duty demand of Rs. 2,00,217/- and penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this adjudication order.

Allegation of Clandestine Removal:
The appellants argued that there was no shortage of goods, as the alleged short quantity was actually present in the finishing room of the production floor. They claimed that the goods were subsequently cleared on payment of duty. The appellants cited relevant case laws to support their position.

Verification of Stock and Subsequent Actions:
The central excise officers verified the stock at the factory, and the appellants requested verification of goods in the finishing room, which was allegedly not done. The factory manager stated that the entry in the register was based on production slips, and the goods were not stored due to oversight. The representative did not produce the goods for verification, leading to the rejection of the appellants' contentions.

Commissioner (Appeals) Observations:
The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the duty demand was based on the appellants' statutory records and not extraneous material. While setting aside the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Commissioner upheld the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, albeit reducing it to Rs. 20,000 based on the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal, upholding the duty demand but modifying the penalty imposition under the Central Excise Rules. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper record-keeping and verification processes in excise matters, emphasizing the need for compliance with statutory requirements to avoid penalties and sanctions.