2006 (5) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants, finding Central Excise confiscation unjustified. Credible documentation supports return for repair claim.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants, ruling that the confiscation of Colour Picture Tubes by the Central Excise Authorities was ... Demand - Clandestine removal Issues:The issue involves the confiscation of Colour Picture Tubes by the Central Excise Authorities on the grounds of clandestine manufacturing, while the appellant claimed they were returned for repair and not newly manufactured goods.Analysis:The appellants, as manufacturers of Colour Picture Tubes, had certain tubes confiscated on suspicion of clandestine manufacturing. The appellant argued that the tubes were returned by TV manufacturers for repair, supported by D-3 declarations and repair registers. The Central Excise Authorities rejected this explanation due to lack of document production during investigation.The appellant's counsel contended that the return of defective tubes for repair was a common practice, supported by relevant documents like 57F(3) invoices, D-3 intimations, repair registers, and despatch invoices. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee.The Revenue, represented by the ld. SDR, argued that the appellant failed to establish the return of tubes by correlating serial numbers of originally cleared tubes with repaired ones. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue, stating that serial numbers were not recorded in transactions from the first clearance, making serial number-wise correlation impractical. The Tribunal found the transactions were supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence, and there was no evidence contradicting the return and repair process.Given the lack of serial number correlation requirement and the presence of documentary evidence supporting the return and repair of the tubes, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The decision was rendered on 18-5-2006 in open court.