1997 (12) TMI 302 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order of Collector (Appeals) regarding excess M.S. Ingots stock seizure.

In this case, the appellant, a registered manufacturer of M.S. Ingots, appealed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) regarding the seizure of excess M.S. Ingots stock by Central Excise Officers. The appellant contended that the Central Excise Officers seized 5.700 M.T. of excess balance based on discrepancies in the stock verification process conducted at the factory. The appellant requested a copy of the relevant documents and information on the method used for calculating the excess stock, but these requests were not fulfilled. The appellant argued that the physical verification report was prepared without weighing or counting the ingots accurately, as the average weight of the ingots was assumed to be 50 or 60 kgs, which did not align with the actual manufacturing process using moulds. Additionally, the appellant highlighted a previous seizure incident where the average weight of the ingots was found to be 71 kgs, indicating discrepancies in the weight calculation methodology used by the authorities. The Department, however, maintained that the seizure was justified based on the discrepancies found during the physical stock verification. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and penalty, noting that the appellant did not raise objections during the verification process. The Tribunal observed that the method of arriving at the average weight was not clearly indicated in the physical verification report. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the recording of the number of ingots and the weight during verification, emphasizing the importance of comparing these figures with the records for accuracy. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's request for more information and clarification was not adequately addressed, especially regarding the dimensions of the moulds used for manufacturing ingots. The Tribunal concluded that all relevant aspects were not considered in the adjudication process, and remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, directing a comprehensive speaking order covering all raised points and providing the appellant with an opportunity to be heard in the matter.