1997 (10) TMI 124 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Shortage of core wires and excess wires and cables found during stock verification
2. Demand of Central Excise duty and proposed confiscation of excess goods
3. Argument regarding intention of removal without payment of duty and awaiting testing of goods
4. Imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty
5. Interpretation of Rule 173Q for confiscation of unaccounted excisable goods
6. Evidence of intention to remove goods without payment of duty for penalty imposition
7. Eligibility of the appellants for SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86
8. Remand for working out the duty liability in light of SSI claim
9. Disproportionately low redemption fine and imposition of penalty

Analysis:

1. The case involved a shortage of core wires and excess wires and cables discovered during a stock verification at the factory premises. The Central Excise duty was demanded on the shortage of core wires, and confiscation of excess goods was proposed under Rule 173Q.

2. The appellants argued that the goods were awaiting testing and meant for a specific buyer, thus no intention of removal without payment of duty existed. They contended that since the goods were still in the factory, confiscation was not justified. The case law cited supported their stance on non-confiscation of unaccounted goods.

3. The Revenue opposed, emphasizing the unaccounted value of goods and the need for a higher redemption fine. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence regarding the testing status of the goods and upheld the Collector's findings on the redemption fine while setting aside the penalty.

4. Rule 173Q(1)(b) was specifically referenced to justify the confiscation of unaccounted excisable goods. The Tribunal distinguished the case law cited by the appellants, highlighting the importance of regular submission of classification lists to avoid confiscation.

5. The Tribunal found no evidence of intent to remove goods without duty payment, leading to the rejection of penalty imposition. The eligibility of the appellants for SSI exemption under a specific notification was raised, requiring further examination by the adjudicating authority.

6. The matter was remanded for determining the duty liability concerning the SSI claim. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's plea for enhancing the redemption fine, emphasizing the lack of evidence of intent to evade duty and the technical nature of the offense.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals, upholding the Collector's findings on the redemption fine, setting aside the penalty, and rejecting the Revenue's plea for penalty enhancement related to the duty sought to be evaded.