2018 (6) TMI 1137 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/r 25 and 26 of CER - unaccounted stock of finished goods - benefit of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 denied - It is the contention of the appellant that the said goods were in semi-finished condition - Held that - Considering the fact that, no finding has been recorded by the adjudicating authority, even though in their defence, the appellant has vehemently argued about the fact that the goods were semi-finished condition, in my opinion, on the face of the Chartered Engineer s Certificate and also since the goods are still lying in the factory premises, the matter is to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify the fact whether the goods are in semi-finished condition or in finished condition, in the interest of justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against confiscation of unaccounted stock of finished goods; Allegation of goods being in semi-finished condition; Entitlement to benefit of Exemption Notification 12/2012-CE; Adjudication of penalty and fine; Appeal rejection by Commissioner (Appeals); Verification of goods' condition; Remand to adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The appeal in question pertains to the confiscation of unaccounted stock of finished goods valued at a specific amount. The appellant contested the confiscation, claiming that the goods were in a semi-finished state and not entered in the required register. The appellant argued that they were entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification 12/2012-CE for clearance of specific goods. The adjudicating authority had initially ruled against the appellant, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the present appeal.

The appellant's representative contended that the goods were indeed in a semi-finished state, supported by a Chartered Engineer Certificate and photographic evidence. They argued that subsequent processes were required before the goods could be considered finished. The representative referenced a relevant tribunal judgment to support their case. Conversely, the Revenue's representative argued that the appellant had previously admitted the goods were finished, and thus, the confiscation was justified.

Upon review, the tribunal found that the issue of the goods' condition was pivotal. Despite the appellant's assertions and evidence, the adjudicating authority had not definitively addressed whether the goods were semi-finished or finished. In light of this, the tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification. The tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal by way of remand and keeping all issues open for further consideration. The appellant was granted a reasonable opportunity for a hearing in the subsequent proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the crucial aspect of determining the actual condition of the goods in question, highlighting the need for a thorough verification process by the adjudicating authority. The decision to remand the case underscored the importance of ensuring a just and comprehensive examination of all relevant factors before reaching a final conclusion.