2018 (1) TMI 689 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - excess of stock - Held that - apart from the fact that there were excess of goods in the assessee s factory, which in any case is being assailed by the assessee, there is virtually no other evidence to show that such excess production was not recorded in RG-1 register with a madafide intention to clear the same without payment of duty - Inasmuch as in the present case, there is no evidence reflecting upon the fact that said goods were not entered in the statutory records with a malafide intention to remove the same, there are no justifiable reasons for confiscating the same or to impose penalty upon the assessee - appeal allowed in toto.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess raw material and final product.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Appeal against confiscation and penalty.
4. Evidence required for confiscation.
5. Interpretation of statutory records.
6. Justification for confiscation and penalty.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing flats out of ingots, faced proceedings due to excess raw material and final product found during a visit by officers. The Original Adjudicating Authority ordered confiscation of the excess items with redemption fines and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld confiscation but reduced fines and penalties. The Revenue appealed against the reduction, while the appellant challenged the confiscation and penalties.

2. The appellant's advocate argued against the confiscation, claiming lack of evidence showing intent for clandestine removal. He contended that confiscation of raw material was unjustified as there is no provision for it. The advocate emphasized discrepancies in the RG-1 register due to minor variations in sectional weight, citing previous decisions to support setting aside confiscation and penalties.

3. The Tribunal observed excess goods at the appellant's factory but noted a lack of evidence proving intent to evade duty payment. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the necessity of inculpatory statements for confiscation and penalty imposition. Rulings from various cases were cited to support the decision to set aside the impugned orders due to the absence of evidence of malafide intentions.

4. As there was no evidence suggesting the unrecorded goods were intended for clandestine removal, the Tribunal found no justification for confiscation or penalties. Consequently, the impugned orders were overturned, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief.

5. Since the appellant's appeal was fully allowed, the Revenue's appeal was rejected accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence and malafide intentions in cases of confiscation and penalty imposition, ultimately leading to the decision to set aside the orders against the appellant.