2006 (2) TMI 448 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, setting aside duty demand and penalty

The tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellant concerning scrap received from a job worker. It ruled in favor of the ... Demand - Clandestine removal - Common accounting Issues: Duty demand and penalty related to scrap received from job workerAnalysis:1. Duty Demand and Penalty: The appellant received copper and iron sheets as inputs, sent them to a job worker for processing, and received processed goods along with scrap. Duty demand was raised for the period from 1994 to 1996 due to the absence of separate accounting of scrap in the RG-1 register. The appellant argued that they stored and cleared all scrap after payment of duty, with no evidence of clandestine removal. The department contended that failure to reflect scrap receipts daily in the register was to evade duty, justifying the duty demand.2. Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant's practice was to store and clear all scrap after paying duty, as explained by their manager. They argued that resorting to Section 11A proviso was unwarranted as there was no suppression of facts, only a dispute about accounting methods. The appellant maintained that there was no clandestine removal of scrap, and the presumption made by the department was not supported by evidence.3. Department's Argument: The department pointed out the clear evidence of scrap receipt from the job worker but highlighted the appellant's failure to record these receipts daily in the RG-1 register. They believed that non-accounting was a deliberate attempt to evade duty, supporting the duty demand. However, the lack of evidence showing clandestine removal or discrepancies in the quantity of scrap cleared on duty payment weakened their stance.4. Judgment: The tribunal found the duty demand and penalty unsustainable, setting them aside and allowing the appeal. The tribunal emphasized that the mere presumption of evasion without concrete evidence was insufficient to justify the duty demand. The appellant's explanation of storing and clearing all scrap after duty payment was accepted, dismissing the need for separate accounting of different types of scrap. The judgment concluded that the duty demand based on presumption alone was not valid, providing consequential relief to the appellant.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, evidence, and reasoning considered by the tribunal in addressing the duty demand and penalty related to scrap received from the job worker.