2018 (8) TMI 551 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the Tribunal is justified in ignoring the explanation submitted by the appellant that mistake was on the part of supplier of cartons in delivering the cartons belong to M/s Sadhvi Gramodyod Samita, Umran, Kanpur Dehat and M/s Manoj Gupta & Co., Chiraura, Kanpur Dehat in the factory premises of the party-appellant? Held that - It is clear from the impugned order itself that the appellant-assessee had accounted those confiscated goods and cleared on payment of duty as well. The aforesaid questions of law are not the questions of law and only are factual aspects of the matter. The appeal thus, has no merit and substance inasmuch as no question of law for interpretation by the High Court is involved and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed on this ground alone.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Central Excise Appeal under Section 35-G against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Justification of ignoring explanations regarding mistake in delivery and packing, and reversal of findings by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appellant, holding Central Excise registration for manufacturing Detergent Cake and Detergent Powder, was paying Central Excise duty and availing Cenvat credit on inputs. Officers conducted a surprise visit and found discrepancies in stock, leading to a show cause notice (SCN) regarding unaccounted goods and duty evasion.
2. The SCN was adjudicated, appealed, and remanded for fresh decision. Eventually, the order for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties was passed, which was further appealed. The Commissioner reduced the penalty but upheld the confiscation, leading to an appeal by the revenue to the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal found a lack of proper accounting by the appellant, justifying confiscation and penalty for irregular record-keeping. The original order was restored, with a reduction in the redemption fine imposed. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating the questions raised were factual, not legal.
4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the strict obligation of manufacturers to maintain accurate records, holding the appellant accountable for unaccounted goods. Despite the appellant clearing the confiscated goods by paying duty, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalty due to inadequate record-keeping.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the sequence of events, decisions made at each stage, and the reasoning behind the Tribunal's final decision to dismiss the appeal.