2005 (5) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty against M/s. Shree Extrusions Ltd.
2. Imposition of personal penalty on the Managing Director.
3. Retraction of statements by the authorized signatory.
4. Allegations of clandestine removal of goods.
5. Utilization of seized billets without proper documentation.
6. Stock verification and discrepancies in billets.

Confirmation of Duty and Imposition of Penalty:
The judgment involved the confirmation of duty amounting to Rs. 5,87,312 against M/s. Shree Extrusions Ltd., a company engaged in manufacturing brass products. Additionally, a personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was imposed on the Managing Director, Shri D.R. Lahori. The case originated from discrepancies found during a visit to the appellant's factory, where a shortage of billets was observed. Despite contentions from the appellants, the duty confirmation and penalties were upheld by the authorities, leading to the appeal.

Retraction of Statements and Allegations of Clandestine Removal:
The authorized signatory of the firm, Shri P. Kadecha, initially admitted to the consumption of seized billets for manufacturing final products without proper documentation. However, he later retracted his statement, citing duress. The case revolved around allegations of clandestine removal of goods based on the shortage of raw materials and intermediate goods. The appellants argued that sufficient evidence was lacking to establish clandestine removal, emphasizing the necessity of concrete proof.

Utilization of Seized Billets and Stock Discrepancies:
The judgment highlighted the unauthorized utilization of seized billets by the appellants, leading to violations of Central Excise laws. The appellants failed to produce evidence showing the recording or clearance of final products manufactured from the seized billets. The court found that the duty needed to be confirmed against the appellants for the consumed billets. However, discrepancies in the balance quantity of billets were noted, with the court extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants due to lack of substantial evidence.

Conclusion and Disposition:
Ultimately, the penalty on the firm was reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs, while the penalty on the Managing Director was set aside. Duty confirmation was upheld for the initially seized billets, with the lower authorities tasked with quantifying the amount. However, duty regarding the balance quantity of billets was set aside. The judgment was pronounced on 5-5-2005, resolving the issues surrounding duty confirmation, penalties, retracted statements, allegations of clandestine removal, and stock discrepancies comprehensively.