1998 (12) TMI 135 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty, redemption fine, and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority.
2. Allegations of non-accountal of excisable goods and clandestine removal.
3. Availability of relied upon documents to the appellants.
4. Seizure of goods and their readiness for despatch.
5. Calculation of differential duty based on private note book entries.
6. Imposition and reduction of penalty on the appellants.

Analysis:

1. The appeal by M/s. Krishna Carbon Paper Co. challenged the duty demand of Rs. 26,057, redemption fine of Rs. 5,000, and penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed by the Dy. Collector of Central Excise. The appellants were involved in carbon paper manufacturing. Central Excise Officers found discrepancies in excise records during a visit, leading to the differential duty calculation. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the decision based on the recorded statement and unaccounted goods.

2. The appellants argued that relied upon documents were not provided, being small-scale manufacturers in a remote area. They explained the private record entries and contested the seizure of goods, claiming they were not fully labelled for despatch. The Department defended the duty calculation based on authentic records, urging the appeal's rejection.

3. The tribunal examined the seized goods found in the factory premises. Disputes arose over the readiness of goods for despatch, with the appellants denying clandestine removal allegations. The tribunal, giving the benefit of doubt, set aside the redemption fine. Regarding duty demand, it was calculated from private note book entries, with the appellants admitting its recovery and purpose. The tribunal confirmed the duty demand after considering small-scale exemption and clearances calculation.

4. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was initially imposed, later reduced to Rs. 5,000 due to doubts regarding the seized goods. The tribunal rejected the appeal except for the reduction in penalty, providing consequential relief to the appellants as per law. The judgment highlighted the importance of record authenticity, small-scale exemptions, and benefit of doubt considerations in excise duty cases.