1999 (8) TMI 513 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Duty demand on cleared steel products without payment.
2. Allegations of clearing products at a lower value by declaring them as scrap.
3. Failure to enter the quantity of finished steel in the RG 1 register.

Analysis of the Judgment:

Issue 1:
The Commissioner demanded duty on steel sheets removed without payment. The appellant argued that the physical stock-checking did not include unpacked goods, leading to a shortage in the calculation. The panchnama revealed discrepancies in the stock-taking process, indicating that not all goods were accounted for. The Departmental Representative failed to justify the shortage, and the comparison between finished and semi-finished products did not support the allegation of clandestine removal.

Issue 2:
The appellant was accused of clearing finished products as scrap at a lower value to evade duty. The Commissioner relied on discrepancies between scrap generated and reported production. However, statements from scrap purchasers did not confirm the Commissioner's view. The conclusion that prime material was cleared as scrap lacked evidence and reasoning, leading to the dismissal of this allegation.

Issue 3:
The failure to enter finished steel quantity in the RG 1 register was acknowledged by the appellant, citing industry practice. The Commissioner deemed this a serious offense, citing mandatory requirements under Rules 53 and 173(4). The appellant claimed the practice was known and accepted by the department, seeking leniency based on industry norms.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no duty payable based on the issues discussed. Penalties, confiscation of assets, and penalties on individuals were set aside. The matter was remanded for a fresh review, emphasizing a fair assessment of the appellant's contentions. The imposition of penalties and confiscation was deemed unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeals.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, evidence, and legal interpretations involved in the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai.