2009 (4) TMI 653 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns order confiscating plastic granules; emphasizes lack of evidence and procedural irregularities

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order confiscating plastic granules and imposing duty, penalty, and fine on the appellant. The tribunal found the ... Confiscation - Excess raw material - Clandestine removal - onus to prove - evidence on record to reflect upon clandestine removal Issues:1. Seizure of plastic granules and agglomerates during a visit to the factory.2. Confiscation of excess raw material and imposition of duty, penalty, and fine.3. Appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals).4. Legal arguments raised by the appellant's advocate.5. Application of relevant case laws to challenge the order.6. Decision of the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the impugned order.Analysis:1. The Central Excise officers visited the appellant's factory and found discrepancies in the stock of plastic granules and agglomerates. The officers seized the excess plastic granules due to a reasonable belief of illicit removal. Statements of company representatives were recorded regarding the discrepancies.2. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated leading to an order confiscating the plastic granules with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. Central Excise duty was imposed on the shortages of plastic agglomerates, along with penalties and interest. The appellant appealed against this order.3. The appellant's advocate raised several arguments, including the lack of evidence for clandestine removal, explanations provided by the company director regarding the excess raw material, and the absence of systematic verification methods during the visit.4. The advocate cited relevant case laws to support the appellant's position, arguing that the order for duty, penalty, and fine should be quashed due to insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities.5. The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments and case laws presented. It noted that confiscation of excess raw material was not justified as it was still on the premises and explained by the appellant. The tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting clandestine removal of goods and highlighted the onus on the Revenue to prove such allegations.6. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and providing consequential relief. The decision was pronounced on 23-4-2009, overturning the earlier orders and allowing the appeal.This comprehensive analysis outlines the issues, legal arguments, application of case laws, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case.