2000 (6) TMI 298 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposed by the Collector.
2. Reduction of duty demand by the Collector.
3. Challenge to the duty demand and classification of goods.
4. Reliance on statement of an individual from the appellant firm.
5. Applicability of Notifications 105/80 and 77/83.
6. Consideration of gate pass and delivery challans for duty on copper rods.
7. Classification of seized goods as finished or unfinished products.
8. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order confirming duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty, remanding the case for consideration of a reconciliation statement and explanation submitted by the assessee. The Collector reduced the duty demand to Rs. 4,42,259, limited confiscation, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant challenged the duty demand and classification of goods, contending they did not manufacture certain items.

2. The Collector reduced the duty demand from the initial amount to Rs. 4,42,259, and imposed penalties and limited confiscation. The appellant disputed the duty demand, specifically challenging the amount levied on discount.

3. The appellant argued they did not manufacture certain goods and disputed the classification list filed by them. The Collector relied on a statement from an individual of the appellant firm regarding the goods manufactured, which the appellant contested without providing substantial evidence.

4. The Collector accepted the appellant's claim for Notification 105/80 but rejected the claim for Notification 77/83 due to the appellant's annual turnover exceeding Rs. 40 lakhs. The Tribunal found the Collector's reasoning lacking and ordered a re-examination of the applicability of Notification 77/83.

5. Regarding duty on copper rods, the Collector dismissed the gate pass and delivery challans submitted by the appellant as not relevant. The Collector also classified seized goods as finished or unfinished products based on technical reports, leading to confiscation.

6. The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant, pending re-determination by the Commissioner after addressing duty-related issues. The Commissioner was instructed to provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to be heard before making a final determination.

7. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in part, with various aspects of the Collector's order being challenged and remanded for further examination and clarification.