2001 (8) TMI 603 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of duty demand, penalty, etc. based on intercepted auto rickshaw carrying P.V. Yarn with discrepancies in the number of bags compared to the invoice issued by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the duty demand and penalties confirmed in the adjudication order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. The facts revealed that an auto rickshaw carrying P.V. Yarn was intercepted by Central Excise officers, and discrepancies were noted between the number of bags mentioned in the invoice and the actual goods in the auto rickshaw. The appellant's employee explained that due to a tempo problem, only a part of the consignment was transported on a different date. The appellant contended that the goods transported later were part of the consignment covered by the initial invoice. However, this explanation was not accepted by the authorities, leading to the impugned orders.

During the arguments, the appellant's counsel emphasized that the yarn in six bags was part of the consignment for which duty had been paid earlier. They argued that there was no evidence to refute this claim, and no verification had been done with the consignee to prove otherwise. The absence of any evidence suggesting that the six bags were not part of the original consignment supported the appellant's case for allowing the appeal.

The Learned SDR highlighted deficiencies in the appellant's explanation, pointing out that specific details regarding the tempo used for transportation were missing. Additionally, the transportation violated Rule 52A(4) of the Central Excise Rules, which required separate invoices for consignments transported on different dates. However, the goods, being industrial raw material, were intended for another industrial consumer, as per the invoice. The authorities failed to verify crucial aspects such as whether the consignee had ordered the goods or received a partial consignment. The appellant's explanation, supported by the packing slip and lack of contrary evidence, appeared credible. No unaccounted production was found at the appellant's factory, further reinforcing the legitimacy of their explanation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's explanation and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders and providing consequential relief, if any.