2004 (9) TMI 269 - AT - Central Excise

Aluminium castings - Demand - Quantification of - Confiscation - Redemption fine - Imposition of

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of seized goods as parts of mixers under Chapter 85 or as aluminium castings under Chapter 76.
2. Determination of duty liability on clearances made during 1994-95 and 1995-96.
3. Authenticity of the production register maintained by the appellant.
4. Methodology employed to determine the value of production and clearances.
5. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.

Classification of Seized Goods:
The Commissioner classified the seized goods as parts of mixers under Chapter 85, relying on Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rules. However, the Tribunal noted that the goods had not been machined, as confirmed by various statements. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal concluded that the seized goods should be assessed as aluminium castings under Chapter 76, leading to a different duty calculation.

Duty Liability on Clearances:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's finding that the goods cleared by the appellant during 1994-95 and 1995-96 were parts of mixers, classifiable under Chapter 85. The goods were sold after machining, and the location of machining did not affect their classification. The duty liability was determined accordingly, after considering the small-scale exemption limit.

Authenticity of Production Register:
The appellant contested the authenticity of the production register used by the Commissioner to determine the quantity of mixer parts produced. Despite retractions of statements, the Tribunal found no reason to doubt the register's accuracy, as corroborated by the manager. The retraction did not diminish the evidentiary value of the register seized from the premises.

Methodology for Determining Value:
The Commissioner utilized sales prices to calculate the value of clearances during 1994-95 and 1995-96. The Tribunal found no fault in this approach, especially since the goods were sold with regular invoices at specified prices. The duty liability was correctly calculated, accounting for the small-scale exemption.

Imposition of Penalty:
A penalty was imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, equivalent to the duty demanded. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal deemed the penalty excessive and reduced it significantly due to the small-scale nature of the unit and the involvement of the deceased individual in managing the affairs.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal making determinations on the classification of goods, duty liability, authenticity of records, methodology for valuation, and the penalty imposed.