2016 (11) TMI 423 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation - Unrecorded stock - Penalty - Rule 25 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - It is strange that the Revenue Officers are seeking to allege that the production which happened during their presence at the time of drawal of panchnama was unrecorded and intended to be cleared without payment of duty - There is no force in the assertion made in the notice that the goods manufactured during the presence of Revenue in the factory were intended to be cleared clandestinely - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Alleged clandestine clearance of goods, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty imposition, discrepancy in recorded and unrecorded stock, legal arguments based on finished goods status, reliance on previous tribunal decisions, lack of evidence for clandestine clearance.

Analysis:

1. Alleged Clandestine Clearance: The case involved the Revenue alleging clandestine clearance of goods by the appellants due to a discrepancy between recorded and unrecorded stock found during a search. The Revenue imposed a redemption fine and penalties on the appellants based on this allegation.

2. Confiscation and Redemption Fine: The goods seized were released provisionally, but later confiscated with an offer for redemption upon payment of a fine. A redemption fine of ?1,25,000 was imposed along with a penalty of ?25,000 on an individual associated with the appellant.

3. Penalty Imposition: Additionally, a penalty equivalent to the duty paid on the cleared goods was imposed under relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules and Act.

4. Discrepancy in Recorded Stock: The appellants argued that the goods were unfinished and hence not entered in the records. They claimed that the goods would have been recorded after finishing. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy in the recorded stock and the goods manufactured during the search period.

5. Legal Arguments and Precedents: The appellant's counsel relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support their argument regarding the status of the goods as unfinished and the timing of entry in records post-finishing.

6. Lack of Evidence for Clandestine Clearances: The Tribunal analyzed the evidence, including the panchnama and statements, to conclude that the goods manufactured during the search period were not intended for clandestine clearances. The Tribunal found no evidence to substantiate the Revenue's claim of clandestine clearances.

7. Judgment: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, refuting the Revenue's assertion of clandestine clearances during the search period. The lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's claim led to the decision in favor of the appellants. The judgment was pronounced on 21/03/2016 by Mr. Raju, Member (Technical).