1998 (7) TMI 293 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged removal of television sets without payment of duty
2. Reconciliation of documents and clearance of television sets
3. Duty demand on sold television sets
4. Liability to confiscation of television sets not accounted for in the RG 1 register

Issue 1: Alleged removal of television sets without payment of duty
The appeal considered whether the appellant had manufactured and removed 754 television sets without paying duty. The appellant manufactured color and black and white television sets, selling them through a marketing agent. The department found discrepancies in delivery challans and invoices, leading to the allegation of removal of 3197 TV sets without duty payment. After reconciliation, the Collector accepted that 754 sets had been cleared on payment of duty, contradicting the initial allegation.

Issue 2: Reconciliation of documents and clearance of television sets
The Collector's order included annexures "X" and "Y" showing the number of sets in question, correlating clearances based on chassis numbers. The Collector expressed doubts about the clearance process, indicating possible clandestine removals. However, discrepancies arose in the reconciliation process between nominated officers and the appellant's officers regarding the clearance of 2443 television sets. The Collector's order lacked detailed reasoning for accepting the reconciliation, prompting the need for a comprehensive explanation.

Issue 3: Duty demand on sold television sets
The Collector confirmed a duty demand on 54 television sets sold by the appellant to its employees, despite claims of being damaged or unusable. The appellant argued that the sets were described as scrap and checked by buyers, but the Collector determined them to be in working order, justifying the duty demand based on the specific duty applicable at the time.

Issue 4: Liability to confiscation of television sets not accounted for in the RG 1 register
Regarding the confiscation of 43 television sets not recorded in the RG 1 register, the Collector relied on production dates and capacity to allege removal without duty payment. However, uncertainties arose regarding the manufacturing status and location of the sets, leading to doubts about their confiscation. Conflicting testimonies and lack of conclusive evidence necessitated setting aside the confiscation.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The Commissioner was directed to provide a detailed explanation of duty liability after considering any errors and determining the appropriate duty amount, granting the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case.