2007 (9) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Removal of goods without paying duty and without the cover of excise invoice goods were seized demand raised for suppression of facts goods were fully entered in RG 1 register and the appellant being a new assessee was not aware that he is not entitled to temporarily remove the goods to another premises of their own factory, which was separated by road - no infirmity in the order of the Comm.(A) which set aside demand, interest and penalty - Revenue s appeal is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty by clearing goods without payment and invoice.
2. Discrepancy in stock clearance and storage at different premises.
3. Lack of awareness of Central Excise rules by the appellant.
4. Imposition of penalty for technical lapse in informing the department about stock movement.
5. Acceptance of Order-in-Original (OIO) and subsequent appeal by the appellant.

Issue 1: The primary issue in this case revolves around the alleged evasion of Central Excise duty by the appellant. The respondent had cleared goods to another premises without payment of duty and without issuing a Central Excise invoice. The department seized the goods, and a show cause notice was issued, leading to the adjudication of the matter.

Issue 2: Another crucial issue was the discrepancy in stock clearance and storage at different premises. The appellant had moved part of its finished stock to a newly acquired premises, which was observed by the Adjudicating Authority. However, it was noted that the stock in the RG-1 register matched the total stock at both the factory and the additional premises. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the duty confirmation, confiscation of goods, and interest demand, citing lack of grounds for such actions.

Issue 3: The case highlighted the appellant's lack of awareness of Central Excise rules. It was noted that being an SSI unit, the appellant lacked knowledge of the procedures under the Central Excise Act and rules. This lack of awareness was considered a mitigating factor in the adjudication process.

Issue 4: A penalty was imposed on the appellant for a technical lapse in not informing or seeking permission from the department before moving the goods to the new premises. However, the Adjudicating Authority acknowledged that there was no motive for undue gain in this action, leading the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the penalty under Rule 25 of CER, 2002.

Issue 5: The final issue addressed the acceptance of the Order-in-Original (OIO) by the appellant. Despite filing a refund claim for the amount paid at the time of goods release, the appellant's appeal against the OIO indicated non-acceptance of the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no infirmity in the order, as the goods had been cleared on payment of duty and fully entered into the RG 1 register. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.