Appellant wins appeal against Central Excise penalties for stock discrepancies.

The appellant, engaged in manufacturing stainless steel products, faced confiscation and penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to discrepancies in recorded versus physical stock. The appellant's argument that the stock differences were due to timing issues during verification was accepted by the Member (Judicial). Lack of evidence for clandestine removal led to the conclusion that Rule 25 did not apply, resulting in the appeal's success. The fine and penalty imposed were set aside in the judgment dated 12.1.2018.

---

---

Issues involved:
Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The case involved the confiscation of excess unaccounted stock of finished goods under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel products, had discrepancies in the recorded quantity of goods compared to the physical stock during a visit by Central Excise officers. Show cause proceedings were initiated, resulting in the imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant.

The appellant's advocate argued that the physical verification was based on estimation, and the appellant maintained daily stock accounts, entering production details at the end of the day. Due to a search operation on a specific date and time, the recorded stock did not match the physical stock, leading to excess stock. The advocate contended that since the goods were physically present, charges of clandestine removal were unjustified, citing judicial precedents to support the argument.

On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the findings in the impugned order. After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the Member (Judicial) accepted the appellant's submissions. It was noted that the production details were not recorded in statutory records due to the timing of the department's verification. Additionally, there was no evidence of intent for clandestine removal. Consequently, the Member concluded that Rule 25 could not be invoked for imposing redemption fine and penalty. Notably, Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was not invoked for confirming the demand.

Ultimately, the impugned order was found lacking merit in supporting the fine and penalty imposition. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the fine and penalty were set aside in the judgment pronounced on 12.1.2018.

---