2014 (5) TMI 758 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals Commissioner Decision: Confiscation upheld for excess goods, penalties reduced, Revenue appeal rejected

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation of excess goods found in the factory but set aside the confiscation of goods seized from the godown. ... Confiscation of goods - Shortage in stock found - Commissioner reduced redemption fine - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals), has granted relief to the respondents in respect of the goods found in the godown. Such relief stands granted by the appellate authority, after taking into consideration, the respondents plea that the goods found therein were earlier cleared on payment of duty under the cover of invoices as the same were rejected by their buyers, that were stored in the godown. He has rightly observed that the allegations of clandestine removal are required to be established by the Revenue and the negative onus cannot be placed upon the assessee. The Revenue has not made any investigations at the end of the buyers so as to find out the veracity of the truth in the contentions of the respondents. In the absence of any positive evidence to reflect upon the clandestinely cleared goods, the appellate authority has rightly concluded that the goods found in the godown cannot be confiscated and duty cannot be confirmed against the assessee - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Confiscation of excess goods found in the factory and godown2. Confirmation of duty relating to shortages detected in the factory3. Imposition of penalties on the respondentsConfiscation of Excess Goods Found in the Factory and Godown:The case involved the confiscation of excess goods found in the factory and godown of the respondents, who were engaged in the manufacture of textile fabrics. The officers of DGCEI conducted search operations and found discrepancies in the stock of finished fabrics and suiting materials. The Asst. Commissioner passed an order confiscating the seized goods and imposed a redemption fine and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation of excess goods in the factory but set aside the confiscation of goods seized from the godown. He noted that the burden of proof was wrongly shifted to the assessee by the Revenue and set aside the confiscation of goods seized from the godown. He reduced the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the respondents.Confirmation of Duty Relating to Shortages Detected in the Factory:The Asst. Commissioner confirmed the duty of Rs.40,848 relating to shortages detected in the factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, he observed that mens rea was not required for confiscation of goods under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.Imposition of Penalties on the Respondents:The penalties imposed by the Asst. Commissioner were challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalties imposed on the respondents from Rs.1.5 lakhs to Rs.10,000 and set aside the penalty imposed on the Managing Director. The reduction in penalties was justified based on the findings related to the confiscation of goods in the factory and godown.In conclusion, the appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, finding no merit in it. The decision was based on the failure of the Revenue to establish allegations of clandestine removal of goods and the incorrect shifting of the burden of proof to the assessee. The reduction in redemption fine and penalties was deemed appropriate based on the findings related to the confiscation of goods.