2016 (8) TMI 539 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine and imposition of penalty - Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules - seizure of entire stock of raw materials and finished goods - excess stock found - weighment was done on eye estimation basis and on the basis of average weighment of each ingots and not on actual basis - Held that - when the weighment was done on eye estimation and not on actual basis and the actual quantity/shortage cannot be obtained. In that circumstance, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess stock of raw material and finished goods.
2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules.
3. Appeal against the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the confiscation of excess stock of raw material and finished goods by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner based on a visit by DGCEI officers to the factory of the appellant. The department alleged an excess of 96.131 M.T. of raw material and 52.118 M.T. of finished products. The appellant contested this, arguing that the stock determination was based on estimation without actual weighment. The Managing Director stated that the weighment was agreed to under pressure and that there was no actual excess. The Tribunal noted that the weighment was done on estimation basis within 10 hours, making it unreliable. Consequently, the order of confiscation was set aside as unsustainable in law.

2. The penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was also challenged. The appellant argued that the weighment was not done accurately and that the excess stock was a result of estimation. The Tribunal found that since the weighment was not done on an actual basis, the penalty imposed could not be justified. Therefore, the penalty was set aside along with the confiscation order.

3. The appellant had appealed against the Order-in-Original and the subsequent Order-in-Appeal, both of which upheld the confiscation and penalty. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, found that the weighment was not conducted accurately and was based on estimation. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of actual weighment over estimation in such cases to ensure legal sustainability.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of confiscation, penalty imposition, and the appeal process, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision in the case.