9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Central Excise duty evasion and penalty imposition based on alleged discrepancies in stock records and removal of goods without payment of duty. 2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine by the Collector. 3. Appeal challenging the Collector's order on the grounds of improper stock verification, calculation mistakes, and lack of corroborative evidence. Analysis: 1. The case involved allegations of Central Excise duty evasion and penalty imposition due to discrepancies in stock records and removal of goods without payment of duty. The Collector's order held that excess stock was found during a visit to the factory premises, and a show cause notice was issued demanding payment of duty and proposing penalties based on the discrepancies identified. 2. The Collector confiscated a certain quantity of bricks and imposed a redemption fine along with confirming the Central Excise duty on suppressed production removed clandestinely. The appellants appealed against this order, arguing that the stock verification was not conducted properly, and goods alleged to have been removed without payment of duty were actually present in the factory premises. 3. The appellants contended that the stock was available in the factory but had not been accounted for in the statutory records due to awaiting testing. They also claimed that broken bricks were sent for recycling but had not been intimated to the department. The appellants raised various legal arguments and cited case laws to support their contentions, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence for the removal of goods without payment of duty. 4. The Departmental Representative argued that penal provisions were attracted as the goods were not accounted for, and there was no justification for seizing only part of the unaccounted stock. The DR highlighted past instances of goods being removed without gate passes and discrepancies between the entries in the Bhatta Register and RG I. 5. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and found that the stock verification report, signed by the factory representative, did not support the appellants' claim that the goods were present in the factory but unaccounted for. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's findings regarding the discrepancies in stock records and removal of goods without payment of duty. 6. The Tribunal concluded that the demand for duty was not based on assumptions, as the Bhatta Account indicated total production, and the excess stock was related to the production recorded in the Bhatta Register. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' plea for exemption raised during the appeal proceedings and modified the duty amount, redemption fine, and penalty imposed by the Collector. 7. In the final order, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision with modifications to reduce the duty amount and redemption fine, while confirming the demand for the reduced duty and penalty. The appeal was rejected, emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate records and complying with excise duty regulations.
|
