2016 (1) TMI 12 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and clearance of various articles of copper and copper alloys - Finished goods daily stock register (RG-1) was not complete - the officers found copper winding wire scrap lying in gunny bags as also in loose and lump condition in the factory. As the appellant could not explain the source of procurement of the said scrap, which is raw material for the appellant, the same was seized under panchnama - Held that - The entire case of the Revenue is based upon the initial statements recorded at the time of visit of the officers. It is well settled law that such statements, though, form part of the evidence, have to be taken with a pinch of salt and require further corroboration. The Revenue cannot rest its case on the sole basis of the statements without taking into account the surrounding circumstances. As such in the absence of any reference by the said deponents, to the fact of passing of quality control test about a week ago and in the absence of any admission that the same were not entered with any malafide intention to remove them clandestinely. Regarding source of scrap - the assessee have produced invoices of two persons showing the sale of the scrap on the previous night of the visit of the officers. No enquiries stand made by the Revenue from the said two suppliers of scrap. If the scrap has been received in the factory on the previous day, late night, it cannot be expected to be entered in the records by the next day early morning. Confiscation of the final products and imposition of penalties upon the assessee is neither justified nor warranted - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of raw materials and final products by the Central Excise department.
2. Imposition of penalties on the assessee.
3. Appeal by the assessee against the impugned order of the Commissioner.
4. Revenue's appeal against dropping the proposal to confiscate the scrap.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved the confiscation of raw materials and final products by the Central Excise department during a visit to the factory of the assessee, who was engaged in the manufacture of copper and copper alloys. The officers seized copper winding wire scrap and finished goods stock, suspecting clandestine removal. Statements of various persons were recorded during post-seizure investigations, where they expressed ignorance about the source of the scrap. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty on the appellant under Rule 25 of Central Excise rules. The Commissioner also dropped the proceedings in respect of copper brass pipe based on a Tribunal's decision. The appellant contested these actions in their appeal.

2. The imposition of penalties on the assessee was based on the Commissioner's findings that the goods were not entered in the required records and that the quality control tests were not conducted as claimed by the appellant. The Commissioner relied on initial statements made by various persons during the officers' visit. However, the Tribunal found that the goods had indeed passed the quality control tests and were not entered in the records due to legitimate reasons. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's case solely relied on initial statements without considering surrounding circumstances or corroborating evidence. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and allowed the assessee's appeal.

3. The assessee's appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner was successful as the Tribunal found that the confiscation of final products and the imposition of penalties were unjustified. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's claims and the legitimate reasons provided by the assessee for not entering the goods in the records promptly. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all relevant factors before confiscating goods or imposing penalties, leading to the decision in favor of the assessee.

4. The Revenue's appeal against the dropping of the proposal to confiscate the scrap was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that non-cenvatable raw materials cannot be confiscated solely based on non-entry in records. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced invoices showing the sale of the scrap on the previous night of the officers' visit, indicating a legitimate transaction. The lack of further inquiries by the Revenue from the suppliers of the scrap further supported the Tribunal's decision to reject the Revenue's appeal.