2018 (8) TMI 87 - AT - Central Excise

Validity of SCN - confiscation of raw material - Held that - The said show cause notice was issued without proper appreciation of the facts and application of provisions of law. Further the computation of differential duty to be demanded was also not on the basis of settled law. Further raw materials were also proposed to be confiscated. The raw materials cannot be confiscated under the provisions of Central Excise law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Confiscation of finished goods and raw materials, Seizure of finished goods at premises, Demand of differential duty, Demand of interest, Imposition of penalty.

Confiscation of Finished Goods and Raw-materials:
The appeals were based on the confiscation of finished goods and raw materials by the Central Excise officers. The appellants argued that the seizure was unjustified as the goods were not entered in the statutory records but were part of the normal manufacturing process. They cited legal precedents to support their claim that seizure of goods in the factory premises is not correct. The appellants contended that the seizure was due to non-maintenance of accounts, not mal-intention. The Tribunal found the seizure improper and not legally justified, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals.

Seizure of Finished Goods at Premises:
Another issue raised was the seizure of finished goods at a specific premises without proper justification. The appellants argued that the goods detained were only samples meant for display and did not have commercial value as they were customized items. They emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest duty evasion, making the seizure unjustified. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants and ruled that the goods were not liable for confiscation, thus setting aside the seizure.

Demand of Differential Duty:
Regarding the demand of a specific amount as differential duty, the appellants challenged the calculation methodology used by the authorities. They argued that the duty demand was based on the amount collected from buyers without specifying the goods supplied. The appellants contended that duty should be levied on manufactured and cleared goods, not just the amount received. The Tribunal found the demand calculation flawed and not legally justified, as it did not comply with the provisions of the Central Excise Act.

Demand of Interest:
The demand for interest on the duty amount was also contested by the appellants, who argued that since the duty demand itself was not justified, the interest demand was also unwarranted. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, stating that the interest demand was not proper and justified due to the underlying issues with the duty demand.

Imposition of Penalty:
Lastly, the appellants challenged the imposition of a penalty based on the alleged short payment of duty. They claimed that any discrepancies were unintentional and promptly addressed by the director. The Tribunal considered the circumstances and concluded that the penalty imposition was not justified, as there was no mal intention in the duty payment shortfall. The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were entitled to consequential relief as per the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised by the parties, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's findings and rulings on each issue, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.