2018 (7) TMI 1051 - AT - Central Excise

Seizure and Confiscation of goods lying in the factory - CENVAT Credit - shortages and excesses of goods and stock - it was alleged that wrong method of stock taking was applied - Held that - The duty is on manufacture and the payment of duty is differed till such time the goods are not removed from the factory. -The alleged excess quantity of finished goods lying in the factory should have been ordered to be entered into RG-1 so that they get accounted for and suffer Central Excise duty and the appellant should have been charged with non maintenance of proper records - The goods manufactured by the appellants unless removed without payment of duty from the factory cannot be seized and confiscated. CENVAT credit is admissible on inputs on receipt of the goods and unless it is establish that the inputs were not received or unless it is establish that inputs were cleared as such the Cenvat credit cannot be recovered - In the present case, there is no evidence either to establish that inputs on which reversal of Cenvat credit was sought were alleged not to have been received by the appellant - Further, there is no evidence that the same were removed without reversal of CENVAT credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Confiscation of finished goods and imposition of penalties under Central Excise Rules.
2. Validity of Cenvat credit demand and penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules.
3. Compliance with weighment procedures during stock verification.
4. Applicability of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules regarding confiscation.
5. Interpretation of intent for clandestine removal of goods.
6. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals arising from an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I, regarding the confiscation of finished goods and imposition of penalties on the appellants. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing M.S. Bars/Angles and were using various inputs while availing Cenvat credit. The central issue was the discrepancy found during stock taking and subsequent show cause notices issued for confiscation and penalties.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the stock taking was not done based on actual weighment, making the recorded quantities questionable. They contended that since the final products were not removed from the factory, they should not be liable for confiscation. The Counsel relied on a previous tribunal order and a High Court ruling to support their argument against the confiscation and penalties imposed.

3. The weighment procedures during stock verification were crucial in determining the accuracy of the recorded quantities. The Counsel highlighted discrepancies in the weighment process and argued that the alleged shortages were not adequately proven. They emphasized that without proper weighment, the recorded stock of inputs could not be considered accurate, affecting the validity of the confiscation and penalties.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules concerning confiscation and found that the goods manufactured by the appellants could not be seized and confiscated unless removed from the factory without payment of duty. The Tribunal noted that the alleged excess quantity of finished goods should have been accounted for and charged with Central Excise duty, rather than being confiscated.

5. Regarding the interpretation of intent for clandestine removal of goods, the Tribunal considered the lack of evidence to establish such intent by the appellants. They referred to previous decisions to support their finding that the provisions of Rule 25 were not complied with, leading to the conclusion that the goods were not liable for confiscation.

6. Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs, emphasizing that unless it was proven that the inputs were not received or were removed without reversing the Cenvat credit, the credit could not be recovered under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal found no evidence to establish that the inputs were not received or were cleared without reversing the credit, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow both appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the confiscation of finished goods and penalties imposed, based on the lack of evidence to support the allegations and non-compliance with relevant rules and procedures.

← Previous Next →