2014 (7) TMI 359 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that - appellants are manufacturing more than 300 varieties of MS pipes. The stock taking was done by comparing the stock with the computer data maintained by the appellants and not with the stock entry in RGI Register. It is also seen that immediately after stock taking, the appellants addressed a letter dated 29.11.2003 to the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak - in the absence of any evidence corroborating the charges of clandestine removal neither confirmation of demand on the short found goods nor confiscation of the excess found goods is to be upheld - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Excess stock and shortage of goods detected during factory visit.
2. Confiscation of excess goods and raw-materials, confirmation of duties for short found goods.
3. Contesting the manner of stock taking and feasibility of physical verification.
4. Confiscation of raw-materials not manufactured by the appellants.
5. Confirmation of demand based on alleged clandestine removal without evidence.
6. Tribunal decisions regarding confiscation of raw-materials and confirmation of demand.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the detection of excess stock and shortage of goods during a factory visit, leading to the initiation of proceedings against the appellants. The original adjudicating authority upheld the confiscation of excess goods and raw-materials, along with the confirmation of duties for short found goods, except for a reduction in the demand related to short found zinc.

2. The appellants contested the stock taking process, highlighting the challenges in accurately determining the quantities of their diverse range of products. They raised concerns about the method of stock comparison and the practical difficulties in assessing the vast stock available in their factory. The appellants also questioned the confiscation of excess raw-materials, which were not manufactured by them, and explained the receipt of such raw-materials under valid invoices.

3. The judge found merit in the appellants' arguments regarding the feasibility and accuracy of physical verification, especially considering the absence of inventories made by the Revenue. The judgment emphasized that the confiscation of excess raw-materials lacked justification, as they were not produced by the appellants and were supported by legitimate invoices. Additionally, the confirmation of demand based on alleged clandestine removal without substantial evidence was deemed unjustified and contrary to legal principles.

4. Referring to relevant tribunal decisions, the judge cited precedents where raw-materials were not liable to confiscation and emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence in cases of alleged clandestine removal. The judgment highlighted previous rulings that disallowed the confirmation of demand for short found goods or the confiscation of excess goods without concrete proof of intended clandestine activities.

5. Ultimately, based on the legal principles established in prior tribunal decisions, the judge set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential relief. The judgment, delivered on 20.03.2014, reflected a thorough analysis of the issues raised, emphasizing the importance of evidence and adherence to legal standards in matters of confiscation and demand confirmation related to excise duties.