2007 (5) TMI 440 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns redemption fine due to lack of evidence, upholds duty-related penalties. Remand for reassessment.

SHARADHA TERRY PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., COIMBATORE

SHARADHA TERRY PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., COIMBATORE - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 550 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues: Duty liability for shortage of goods in factory, challenge to decision regarding goods seized from the vehicle, penalty imposition under Central Excise Rules, contestation of goods valuation, remand for consideration of assessee's claim under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act.Analysis:1. The appellants, a 100% EOU manufacturing Terry Towels, faced a dispute when Central Excise officers intercepted a lorry carrying terry fabrics from a job worker. The seized goods and discrepancies in stock led to a show-cause notice seeking confiscation and penalties. The original authority imposed duty demand, penalties, and fines. The subsequent appeal against this decision was unsuccessful, leading to the current appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order sustaining the original authority's decision.2. The duty liability concerning the shortage of goods in the factory was acknowledged by the appellants. However, a significant challenge was raised regarding the goods seized from the vehicle. The appellants argued that there was no correlation between the Annexure II challan and Delivery challans, emphasizing that excess fabric returned by the job worker was not proven. The lack of inquiry at the job worker's end was highlighted, questioning the basis for the confiscation and penalties imposed. The lower authorities' findings were contested, with the appellants refuting liability.3. Upon review, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument. The absence of evidence from the job worker undermined the Revenue's claim of excess fabric return. The nature of transactions suggested that discrepancies could only be ascertained over longer intervals, not through sudden stock-taking. The failure of lower authorities to address this aspect led to the set-aside of the redemption fine imposed, citing misapplication of Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules.4. Penalties under Rule 9(2) and Rule 226 were imposed on the appellants for duty-related violations. Despite prior duty payment for the short goods in the factory, the penalty was upheld due to established facts of non-compliance. The Tribunal rejected the argument for penalty dismissal, as the invoked provisions aligned with the violations committed by the appellants.5. A challenge was raised against the valuation of goods for duty calculation, citing non-consideration of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) benefits. The failure to present this plea earlier led to a remand for reassessment by the original authority, emphasizing the need to address the appellants' claim under the relevant Act.6. The Tribunal vacated the redemption fine but upheld the remaining order, subject to the reassessment of duty considering the appellants' claim under Section 4(4)(d)(ii). The modification of the impugned order was directed based on the reassessment outcome.7. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the modifications and reassessment directions for duty calculation, ensuring a comprehensive review of the appellants' claims under the Central Excise Act.