2005 (5) TMI 220 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of unaccounted goods
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty
3. Duty payment on short found parts and accessories
4. Penalty for delayed debit of duty
5. Confiscation of short found goods
6. Weighment of goods for determining shortage

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved contesting the correctness of the order-in-appeal modifying the confiscation of finished/unaccounted goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation based on the goods still being in the factory premises. However, citing a Bombay High Court judgment, it was ruled that even non-accounted goods can be confiscated without establishing intent. Therefore, the impugned order was reversed, restoring the confiscation of goods but reducing the redemption fine and penalty.

2. Regarding the duty payment on short found parts and accessories, the duty had already been paid by the respondents before the issuance of the show-cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly did not impose a penalty, aligning with a Larger Bench decision in a similar case.

3. The judgment also addressed the issue of delayed debit of duty for goods valued at Rs. 6910. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty under Rule 226 as the duty was debited the next working day after the goods' removal, upholding the decision.

4. In the case of short found goods (31.367 m.t. H.R. Coils), the duty was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to improper weighment of the goods. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for actual weighment rather than estimation to determine the quantity of short goods accurately.

5. The overall decision modified the impugned order, with the appeal of the Revenue being disposed of accordingly. The judgment highlighted various legal precedents and interpretations to justify the decisions made on each issue, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of the matter.