2019 (8) TMI 1100 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - allegations in the SCN restrict to a mere non-entry, as pleaded by the Ld. Advocate and not on the non-recording of production - HELD THAT - The conditions of Rule 25 ibid remain unsatisfied - When Clause (b) of Rule 25 speaks of account , the adjudicating authority has to find out that the same was not accounted anywhere, not just in RG-1 but even in ERP, since the Central Excise Rules also recognize ERP as a method. The proceedings are concluded in haste, without proper enquiry and without sufficient investigation, which only renders the impugned order unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Alleged non-accounting for production and removal of excisable goods without payment of duties leading to confiscation and fines.

Analysis:

1. Alleged Non-Accounting and Removal of Excisable Goods:
The Revenue alleged that the appellant did not properly account for its production and removed excisable goods without paying appropriate duties. The appellant's premises were visited, and discrepancies were noted in the stock register regarding Sponge Iron. The authorities seized computer CPUs and documents. The Order-in-Original ordered confiscation, levied fines, and imposed penalties under relevant rules and acts.

2. Defense and Submissions:
The appellant filed a detailed reply and argued that no irregularities were found in other aspects like raw material procurement or electricity consumption. The appellant claimed that the ERP system maintained accurate records, except for a few days due to staff absence. The appellant highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's allegations of clandestine activities and emphasized the compliance with Central Excise Rules through the ERP system.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Compliance:
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to demonstrate discrepancies between the RG-1 stock register and the ERP system. The appellant's adherence to the ERP system since 2010 was acknowledged, and no fault was found in the record-keeping or compliance with statutory requirements. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority did not adequately investigate or inquire into the matter before passing the impugned order.

4. Legal Analysis and Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the conditions of Rule 25 regarding non-accounting were not satisfactorily proven. The adjudicating authority did not adequately consider the appellant's explanations and the use of the ERP system. The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings were rushed, lacking proper investigation, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per the law.

In summary, the Tribunal overturned the Order-in-Original due to insufficient evidence of non-accounting and removal of excisable goods, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigations and proper consideration of compliance methods like the ERP system.