2005 (5) TMI 524 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal confirms duty amount, penalties imposed, Managing Director penalty set aside. Benefit of doubt on billet quantity.

SHREE EXTRUSIONS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT

SHREE EXTRUSIONS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 113 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:- Confirmation of duty against the appellant- Imposition of personal penalty on the appellant and Managing Director- Utilization of seized goods without proper documentation- Retraction of statements by the appellant's representative- Allegations of clandestine removal of goods- Benefit of doubt to the appellant regarding the balance quantity of goodsConfirmation of Duty and Imposition of Penalty:The judgment pertains to the confirmation of duty amounting to Rs. 5,87,312 against M/s. Shree Extrusions Ltd., along with the imposition of personal penalties. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing brass products, faced allegations of discrepancies in the recorded stock of billets. The central issue revolved around the consumption of seized billets without proper documentation, leading to the duty confirmation and penalty imposition. The appellant's representative's statements, retracted and reconfirmed, played a crucial role in the proceedings.Utilization of Seized Goods and Retraction of Statements:The appellant's factory was visited twice, with the first visit resulting in the seizure of billets, later handed over to the appellant under Supratnama. Subsequently, during another visit, discrepancies in the billet stock were noted. The appellant's authorized signatory initially admitted to the consumption of seized goods without proper entry in the register, leading to the initiation of proceedings. However, the retraction of statements and claims of duress complicated the matter.Allegations of Clandestine Removal:The appellant contested allegations of clandestine removal based solely on shortages and statements. The appellant argued that sufficient evidence must establish such charges, emphasizing the absence of concrete proof of duty evasion. The appellant's financial difficulties were cited as a reason for the unauthorized utilization of seized goods. The Revenue, however, maintained that the consumption without permission violated Central Excise laws, justifying the duty confirmation and penalties.Benefit of Doubt and Final Decision:After considering arguments from both sides, the tribunal confirmed duty for the consumed seized billets and imposed a reduced penalty on the firm. The penalty on the Managing Director was set aside. The tribunal extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant regarding the balance quantity of billets found short, setting aside the duty confirmation for that portion. The judgment concluded by specifying the penalties and duties confirmed, providing a detailed resolution to the issues raised in the case.