1998 (7) TMI 260 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Differential Central Excise duty calculation based on private records
- Claim of exemption under Notification No. 16/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990
- Discrepancy in stock maintenance between private and excise records
- Penalty imposition by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the demand of differential Central Excise duty by M/s. Bhagaria Marbles based on discrepancies in production entries between private records and excise records following a visit by Central Excise officers. The Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, imposed a duty of Rs. 2,41,422/- and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, which is being challenged.

2. The appellants argued that the differences in records were due to breakages not accounted for in their records, as these broken pieces were exempt under Notification No. 16/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990. They contended that the laborers were only concerned with wages, not exact measurements, leading to discrepancies. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision supporting their position.

3. The Respondent countered that the appellants failed to maintain records of broken pieces, did not provide invoices, and raised the plea of broken pieces as an afterthought. It was argued that there was no justification for laborers to record different production figures than those in excise records.

4. Upon review, it was found that the appellants were engaged in manufacturing marble slabs, with discrepancies in stock maintenance between private and excise records identified during a visit by Central Excise officers. The broken pieces were considered excisable but exempt under the mentioned Notification.

5. The judgment highlighted that while broken pieces were excisable, they enjoyed exemption under Notification No. 16/90-C.E., leading to discrepancies in record-keeping. The duty was confirmed based on the classification of goods under the notification, despite the exemption.

6. The statement of the proprietor indicated that stock records were related to wages for contractors and maintained per sq. mtr., with no specific record of slab breakage. It was noted that the differential duty was calculated based on precise measurements in private records.

7. The argument that the laborers were only concerned with full blocks, not exact measurements, was dismissed as private records detailed measurements accurately. The judgment upheld the demand for differential duty of Rs. 2,41,422/-.

8. While confirming the duty demand, the penalty imposed was reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- considering all relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The final decision confirmed the duty demand but reduced the penalty amount accordingly.