2017 (12) TMI 216 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - it was alleged that the machines not reflected in the RG-1 Register were removed clandestinely without payment of Central Excise duty - Held that - On perusal of the progress report and the RG-1 Register for the period 1997-98 to 1999-2000, it is found that the 36 Nos. of semi-finished machines were reflected as finished machines by the appellant in the RG-1 Register during the relevant period. Thus, there is no mis-match between the figures reflected in the progress report and the quantity shown in the RG-1 Register - there is also no mis-match between the machines and the model sold during the month of December and March, were different having different assessable value. Accordingly, the appellant had maintained two set of RG-1 Register for different models of machines manufactured by it. Thus, there is no overlapping of the date or figure in the RG-I Register as claimed by the authorities below. In absence of any substantiation of the fact of clandestine removal of goods by the appellant, the charges levelled against it in support of confirmation the adjudged demand cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods without payment of Central Excise duty.
2. Discrepancy between the figures reflected in the progress report and the RG-1 Register.
3. Use of terminology in progress report and maintenance of proper records.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods without payment of Central Excise duty. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing socks knitting machines, was accused of removing machines without reflecting them in the RG-1 Register, leading to a demand for duty and imposition of penalties.

2. The discrepancy between the figures reflected in the progress report and the RG-1 Register was a crucial point of contention. The Department alleged that there were machines manufactured but not recorded in the RG-1 Register, indicating clandestine removal. However, the appellant argued that there was no mis-match between the figures in the progress report and the RG-1 Register, presenting a reconciliation statement to support their claim.

3. The issue of terminology used in the progress report was raised by the adjudicating authority, highlighting the absence of the term 'structure'. However, the Tribunal found that since there was no mis-match between the goods manufactured and those reflected in the RG-1 Register, the terminology used in the progress report was not a significant factor. The Tribunal emphasized that the RG-1 Registers maintained by the appellant adequately demonstrated the products manufactured in a marketable condition, fulfilling the requirements of proper record-keeping under the Central Excise statute.

4. Upon thorough examination of the case records, the Tribunal concluded that there was no overlapping of periods or figures in the RG-1 Register as claimed by the authorities. The Tribunal found that the appellant had accurately reflected the semi-finished machines in the progress report, which were later recorded in the RG-1 Register as finished machines. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the appellant maintained separate RG-1 Registers for different models of machines, ensuring proper documentation.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that in the absence of concrete evidence supporting the clandestine removal of goods and considering the accurate reflection of manufactured products in the RG-1 Register, the charges against the appellant could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law.