2018 (3) TMI 403 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - shortage of raw material - MS billets - Held that - the production particulars for 21.1.2013 was not recorded in such statutory register, even though the Central Excise officers visited the factory on 24.1.2013. Thus, the provisions of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 is violated/contravened by the appellant and as such, the excess found stock was liable for confiscation. Considering the fact that there was no scope for entering the production particulars on 24.1.2013 in the statutory record on the said date and in view of the fact that the balance excess found stock was also available in the factory of the appellant, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, in this case, can be reduced in the interest of justice. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Clandestine manufacture of MS billets/TMT bars
- Confiscation of excess TMT bars
- Imposition of penalties under Rule 25 and 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002
- Proper maintenance of daily stock account
- Violation of statutory provisions

Analysis:

The appeal involved a case where the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of TMT bars and M.S. billets, was suspected of clandestine activities leading to the confiscation of excess TMT bars and imposition of penalties. The Central Excise officers conducted a search at the factory premises based on information regarding the unauthorized removal of goods. The discrepancies found during the search, including a shortage of raw material and excess TMT bars, prompted the issuance of a show cause notice for confiscation and penalties under Rule 25 and 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

The appellant argued that due to the timing of the visit and recording requirements, the excess TMT bars should be adjusted, and the goods were not intended for clandestine removal. The Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the lack of proper maintenance of daily stock accounts indicated an intention to remove the excess goods without duty payment. The Tribunal considered these arguments along with the case records.

It was established that the appellant failed to maintain the daily stock account properly, violating statutory provisions. While agreeing with the confiscation and penalties imposed, the Tribunal acknowledged the constraints faced by the appellant in recording production particulars on the day of the visit. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty in the interest of justice, considering the availability of the excess stock within the factory premises.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal modified the impugned order by reducing the redemption fine to Rs. One lakh and the penalty to &8377; 50,000, thereby disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellant to a certain extent. The decision emphasized a balance between penal consequences and mitigating circumstances based on the facts and circumstances of the case.