2005 (7) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Challenge of correctness of impugned order-in-appeal confirming confiscation of finished goods/inputs, duty on short found finished goods/inputs, and imposition of penalty.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the appellants challenged the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal confirming the confiscation of finished goods/inputs, duty on short found finished goods/inputs, and imposing a penalty on them. The Tribunal observed that during the disputed period, the appellants were involved in the manufacture of Antimony concentrate and Antimony metal while availing the Modvat credit on duty-paid inputs. Central Excise officers verified the stock of finished goods and inputs, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice (SCN) and subsequent confirmation of duty and confiscation of goods by the adjudicating authority, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Regarding the duty confirmed against the appellants for the shortage of finished goods, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had provided explanations for the shortage but those were not accepted by the authorities, especially when a shortage of inputs, on which credit was availed, was also found. The duty demand for short found finished goods was upheld, while the demand for short found inputs was set aside due to lack of evidence proving their removal by the appellants.

The Tribunal further addressed the confiscation of finished goods and excess inputs in the factory, ruling that the explanations provided by the appellants for non-entry of finished goods and the lack of Modvat credit for excess inputs were valid. As no contrary evidence was presented by the Revenue, the order regarding the confiscation of finished goods and inputs was set aside.

In response to the Revenue's contention that the shortage of inputs did not correlate with the shortage of finished goods, the Tribunal emphasized the lack of tangible evidence suggesting the removal of inputs by the appellants. It concluded that some inputs had been used in the manufacture of finished goods still in the factory, and no separate duty for short found inputs could be claimed. Consequently, the duty was confirmed against the appellants, and the penalty was reduced, leading to the modification of the impugned order. The appeal was disposed of accordingly with consequential relief as per law.