1995 (12) TMI 112 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-accountal of 34 pieces of plywood in the bonded store room.
2. Confiscation of 1356 pieces of plywood and blockboard in the finishing room.
3. Alleged clandestine removal of 252 pieces of blockboard.
4. Alleged removal of 7107.44 sq. mtrs. of commercial plywood without payment of duty.
5. Penalties imposed on the appellants and individuals.

Summary:

1. Non-accountal of 34 pieces of plywood in the bonded store room:
The appellants argued that the 34 pieces of plywood found in the bonded store room on 1-2-1988 were produced on 30-1-1988 and could not be entered in the R.G. 1 register because the dealing assistant was on leave. The Tribunal accepted this explanation, considering the breach as purely technical and held that the goods were not liable for confiscation. Consequently, no penal action was warranted.

2. Confiscation of 1356 pieces of plywood and blockboard in the finishing room:
The appellants contended that the 1356 pieces found in the finishing room were in various stages of processing and had not attained the character of fully finished goods, thus not requiring entry in the statutory records. The Tribunal accepted this explanation, noting that the segregation of these goods took almost two days, indicating they were not fully finished. Therefore, the goods were not liable for confiscation, and no penalty was justified.

3. Alleged clandestine removal of 252 pieces of blockboard:
The charge was based on certain corrections in the production slips. The appellants argued that the total production was correctly recorded despite the corrections. The Tribunal found that the corrections only created suspicion and did not constitute conclusive evidence of clandestine removal. In the absence of concrete evidence, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants, and the demand for duty and penalty on this account was deemed unsustainable.

4. Alleged removal of 7107.44 sq. mtrs. of commercial plywood without payment of duty:
The demand was based on an alleged shortage of veneer. The appellants argued that the shortage was due to defective veneers being burnt and not accounted for. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' contention that the demand was barred by limitation, as the show cause notice issued on 19-5-1992 was nearly four years after the initial investigation on 1-2-1988. Citing the case of Upper Doab Sugar Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, the Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred and thus unsustainable.

5. Penalties imposed on the appellants and individuals:
Given the findings on the above issues, the penalties imposed on the appellants and individuals were also deemed unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, concluding that the demands and penalties were not justified based on the evidence and legal provisions.