2018 (5) TMI 465 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty - HTS wire scrap removed from the premises of the appellant without preparation of documents - Held that - there is no correspondence from the appellant for renewal of the permission to remove scrap on weighment challan - even if there is no weighment challan they could have prepared a adhoc documents which would indicate that the vehicle was being sent for weighment purposes, was to return back to the factory on further documentation, and the documents which were carried by the Assistant Clerk cum Cashier was blank in all respects - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Demand of duty on HTS wire scrap removed from premises without proper documentation.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad concerned the demand of duty on HTS wire scrap removed from the appellant's premises without proper documentation. The vehicle carrying the scrap was intercepted by Anti Evasion Officers, leading to the seizure of the goods and vehicle. The Assistant Clerk cum Cashier accompanying the vehicle stated that the goods were being taken for weighment outside the factory premises due to the unavailability of a weigh bridge within the factory. The permission to remove the goods under weighment challan had expired in June 2008, and the appellant failed to renew it. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued, and the duty demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty. The seized goods and vehicle were confiscated, with an order for release on payment of redemption fine. The First Appellate Authority upheld the impugned order.

During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that there was a procedural lapse and that the removal of scrap for weighment purposes was legitimate, as the final goods manufactured were for railways and duty had been paid on those goods. The counsel contended that the Revenue's assertion of clandestine removal was incorrect. However, the Departmental Representative supported the findings of the lower authorities.

Upon careful consideration, the Member (Judicial) found that the impugned order did not warrant interference for several reasons. Firstly, there was no correspondence from the appellant regarding the renewal of permission for scrap removal on weighment challan, despite their awareness of the required procedure. Secondly, even in the absence of a weighment challan, the appellant could have prepared ad hoc documents to indicate the legitimate purpose of sending the vehicle for weighment. However, the documents carried by the Assistant Clerk cum Cashier were blank in all respects.

Ultimately, the Member (Judicial) upheld the findings of the lower authorities, confirming the duty demand with interest, imposing a penalty, and confiscating the goods and vehicle. The appeal was deemed devoid of merits and rejected, with the impugned order upheld as correct and legal. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.