1999 (9) TMI 639 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Alleged clandestine removal based on shortages detected during stock verification.
2. Alleged clandestine clearance based on discrepancies between RG-1 register and log book entries.
3. Imposition of personal penalty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Clandestine Removal Based on Shortages Detected During Stock Verification:

The demand of Rs. 1,08,422.39 was confirmed on the basis of a shortage of 33.03 MT of casting and cast articles of steel detected during a stock verification conducted on 23-12-92. The appellants argued that the discrepancies arose because the goods were in various stages of processing and not entered in the RG-1 register. They contended that their practice was to enter goods in the RG-1 register immediately after they came out of the moulds, before further processes like fettling, heat treatment, and gas cutting. They also highlighted that they had sent a detailed letter to the Department on the next working day, explaining the reasons for the shortages and inviting a fresh stock verification, which was not undertaken by the Department. The adjudicating authority did not consider these explanations and deemed the letter an afterthought. However, the Tribunal found that the Department did not rebut the practice disclosed by the appellants and failed to verify the appellants' claims. The Tribunal concluded that mere shortages cannot substantiate the charge of clandestine removal and set aside the demand of Rs. 1,08,422.39.

2. Alleged Clandestine Clearance Based on Discrepancies Between RG-1 Register and Log Book Entries:

The demand of Rs. 91,456.57 was based on discrepancies between the RG-1 register and a private log book maintained by the appellants. The appellants explained that entries in the log book were made immediately after casting, and defective goods were scrapped and recycled, leading to differences between the log book and RG-1 register. The adjudicating authority, however, found that the log book entries represented the actual production and removal of finished goods, as the quantities recorded in the log book and RG-1 register tallied wherever entries were made in both records. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the appellants did not provide evidence that defective goods were remelted and that the log book entries were made after the goods were finished. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the demand of Rs. 91,456.57.

3. Imposition of Personal Penalty:

The adjudicating authority imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellants. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000/-.

Judgment Summary:

- Demand of Rs. 1,08,422.39 was set aside.
- Demand of Rs. 91,456.57 was confirmed.
- Personal penalty was reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-.

The appeal was disposed of in the above manner.