2005 (3) TMI 256 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Verification process during a factory visit, validity of confiscation order based on eye estimation, sufficiency of evidence for goods removal from factory, applicability of legal precedents.

Verification Process Issue:
The appellant argued that the verification of a large quantity of stock during a short period through eye estimation was impermissible under the rules. The officer's mode of verification was not specified, leading to uncertainties. Citing legal precedents, the appellant contended that no demand could be based on eye estimation alone. The Commissioner's failure to address the verification process rendered the order legally flawed.

Confiscation Order Issue:
The officer's verification method, based on eye estimation, was deemed uncertain and unreliable. The absence of evidence showing actual physical verification or weighment raised doubts about the accuracy of the findings. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument that goods found in the factory without proper entry in the register could not be confiscated unless there was proof of removal without duty payment. The order confiscating goods without such evidence was deemed unsustainable.

Decision:
The appellate tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and set aside the impugned order, granting consequential benefits. The appeal was allowed based on the insufficiency of the verification process and the lack of evidence supporting the confiscation order.