9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1359 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - M.S.Ingots - excess stock of finished goods - Confiscation - Redemption Fine - Held that - It is noticed that the Central Excise Officers, detected the excess stock after taking into account the clearances from 01.02.2009 to 09.02.2009 and further taking closing stock as on 31.01.2009. It is apparent from the face of the record that the stock register was written upto 31.01.2009. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that had the appellant had any bonafide intention, they would have entered the said excess stock in their Daily Stock report, if not in DSA. Thus, the appellant had not recorded the excess quantity of stock in their record - confiscation and redemption fine justified - penalties also upheld. Clandestine removal - clearance of 65.903 M.T. of the unrecorded stock of finished goods - extended period of limitation - Held that - It is seen from the record that the Director of the appellant company in his statement dated 31.05.2011 had accepted the non-existence of 65.903 MT of the unrecorded stock of the said goods. He stated that it is implied that the clearance of the same without payment of duty and accordingly paid the duty on 65.903 M.T. - the Director of the appellant company admitted that the goods were cleared without payment of duty. Hence, the extended period of limitation can be invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues involved:
1. Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal Nos.16-17/BOL/2016-17 dated 19.04.2016 & Appeal No.E/76305/16 against the Order-in-Appeal No.15/BOL/2016-17 dated 19.04.2016. 2. Confiscation of excess stock of finished goods and penalty imposition. 3. Discovery of unrecorded stock in a mobile phone. 4. Show Cause Notice issued for demand of duty, interest, and penalty. 5. Imposition of penalties on the appellant company and its Director. 6. Appeal against the penalties imposed and demand of duty. Analysis: 1. The Appellants filed appeals against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals II) of Central Excise, Kolkata regarding the confiscation of excess stock of finished goods and penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order reducing the penalty to the Central Excise duty in excess stock of seized goods. Another appeal was filed against the demand of duty, interest, and penalty proposed in a Show Cause Notice based on the discovery of unrecorded stock in a mobile phone. 2. The Manager of the appellant Company accepted the excess stock of finished goods found by Central Excise Officers. The stock was detected after considering clearances and closing stock, indicating unrecorded balance. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the failure of the appellant to record the excess stock, justifying the imposition of a fine in lieu of confiscation. However, the fine amount was deemed excessive and required reduction. Previous appeals by Revenue against dropped penalties were dismissed based on the Litigation Policy. 3. The issue in the second appeal was the clearance of unrecorded stock of finished goods clandestinely removed without payment of duty. The Director of the appellant company admitted to the non-existence of the stock and acknowledged the clearance without duty payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty, citing the admission of clearance without payment. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was supported by the admission of goods being cleared without duty payment. 4. The Tribunal reduced the penalty amount in one appeal and rejected the other, maintaining the Commissioner (Appeals) orders. The reduction in penalty was to &8377; 50,000 in one case, while the appeal against the demand of duty was rejected. The decision was pronounced on 27.03.2018.
|
