2019 (3) TMI 764 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - SSI Exemption benefit - penalty - Held that - The Appellate Authority has simplicitorily observed that there was an intention on the part of the assessee to remove the goods in question without payment of duty. He has neither referred to any evidence on record nor has established such an intention on the part of the assessee. He has also not denied that the appellants were working under the small scale exemption Notification - the confirmation of demand of duty or confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties was neither justified nor warranted. The appellants are duty bound to enter such goods in their record to show their clearances on the basis of documents issued by them - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Request for Adjournment, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of penalty

Request for Adjournment:
The judgment begins with the rejection of a request for adjournment, leading to the immediate consideration of the appeal due to the simplicity of the issue at hand. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of various products falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, faced proceedings initiated against them following a visit by Central Excise Officers resulting in the seizure of unaccounted final products and raw materials.

Confiscation of goods:
The Original Adjudicating Authority vacated the seizure of raw materials but confiscated the seized finished excisable goods, valuing them at a specific amount and imposing a duty along with redemption fine and penalty. The appellant challenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals) primarily on the grounds of falling within the small scale exemption benefit, engaging in trading activities, and the lack of evidence supporting clandestine removal of goods.

Imposition of penalty:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty, citing the unaccounted goods found during the search operation and the appellant's failure to maintain necessary records, indicating an intention to evade duty. However, the Appellate Authority found no substantial evidence supporting the intention to evade duty, noted the appellant's eligibility for the small scale exemption Notification, and deemed the confirmation of demand, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties unjustified. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief granted to the appellant.