2018 (5) TMI 297 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns penalties under Central Excise Rules, citing timely intimation and verification failure.

Suntec Enterprises Versus CCE, Delhi-IV

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the penalties imposed by the Department under the Central Excise Rules. The decision ... Demand of tax with interest and penalty - case of Revenue is that the goods were not entered in their daily stock account register and the assessee failed to prove the re-entry of the said exported goods and also the assessee had delayed the D-3 intimation - Held that: - It is not disputed that the goods were indeed cleared much later in the month of September-October 2010, and since there was delay in D-3 intimation, it would have been proper for the officers to verify the goods, which is mandated for only 5% of the intimations, but the officers never went to verify the goods in the intervening period - the bonafide of the appellants cannot be doubted and a demand cannot be fastened to them merely on the basis of presumptions - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Non-export of goods under LUT- Failure to enter goods in daily stock account register- Delay in D-3 intimation- Imposition of penalty under Central Excise RulesAnalysis:1. Non-export of goods under LUT:The appellants, manufacturers of cut wire shot, had intended to export goods under LUT but faced cancellation of the order, resulting in the return of goods to their factory. The genuineness of reasons for non-export was acknowledged, supported by evidence of cancellation from Customs, payment of demurrage, and production of Sales Tax challan of Haryana. The Tribunal noted the delay in bringing goods back to the factory and their entry in the daily stock account register. However, the Department's failure to verify the goods within 24 hours of receiving the D-3 intimation was highlighted, questioning the basis for the demand against the appellants.2. Failure to enter goods in daily stock account register:Despite the delay in entering goods in the daily stock account register, the appellants submitted the D-3 intimation to the Department promptly upon receiving the goods back in the factory. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department's obligation to verify the goods within 24 hours of intimation was not fulfilled, raising doubts about the justification for the demand based on presumptions rather than concrete verification.3. Delay in D-3 intimation:The Department raised concerns about the delayed filing of the D-3 intimation and the entry date in the daily stock account register. However, the appellants' timely submission of the D-3 intimation upon the return of goods, coupled with the Department's failure to verify the goods promptly, led the Tribunal to question the validity of penalizing the appellants solely on the grounds of procedural delays.4. Imposition of penalty under Central Excise Rules:The original order imposed penalties on the appellants for procedural violations, including failure to enter goods in the stock account register and delayed D-3 intimation. While the penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was set aside by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the demand along with interest and penalty under Rule 25 was upheld but reduced. The Tribunal, however, found no merit in the Commissioner's order and set it aside, ultimately allowing the appeal filed by the appellants based on the genuine circumstances surrounding the non-export and return of goods.In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the lack of justification for the demand and penalties imposed by the Department, given the genuine reasons for non-export, timely intimation upon return of goods, and the Department's failure to verify the goods promptly. The decision set aside the Commissioner's order, highlighting the appellants' bonafide actions and dismissing the presumptive basis for the demand.