2018 (7) TMI 1192 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Overturns Confiscation and Penalty in Molasses Case

The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of excess molasses and penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a case involving allegations of ... Clandestine removal - whether the appellant was tallying excess molasses without recording the same in their RG-1 register with intent to remove those clandestinely? - Held that:- Save and except the excess quantity of molasses, there is no allegation in the SCN - The appellant cannot discharge any quantity of molasses without specific permissions issued by the State Excise Authority, even for own consumption, the appellant is required to obtain requisite permit from the State Excise Authority - further, no clandestine clearance has been found under the facts and circumstances - demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Allegation of tallying excess molasses without recording in RG-1 register for clandestine removal.- Confiscation of excess molasses, penalty imposition, and reduction by Commissioner (Appeals).- Appeal against the impugned order before the Tribunal.Issue 1: Allegation of tallying excess molasses without recording in RG-1 register for clandestine removalThe appellant, a producer of Sugar & Molasses, faced allegations of tallying excess molasses without recording in the RG-1 register with the intent of clandestine removal. An inspection revealed an excess of 37,954.6 Qtls of molasses, leading to a Show Cause Notice for confiscation and penalty under Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant contested the notice, and the matter was adjudicated confirming the confiscation of 23,475 Qtls of molasses, with a redemption fine and penalty imposed. However, the State Excise Department's control over molasses custody, regular measurements, and allowances for variations in dip reading method were highlighted by the appellant's counsel to refute the allegations of clandestine removal.Issue 2: Confiscation of excess molasses, penalty imposition, and reduction by Commissioner (Appeals)The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order, which upheld the confiscation and redemption fine but reduced the penalty imposed. The appellant further challenged this decision before the Tribunal. The Revenue authorities relied on the impugned order, emphasizing the allowances made for normal variations in dip reading method. The Tribunal noted that the Show Cause Notice lacked specific allegations of clandestine removal and found no evidence of such activity. It was highlighted that the appellant required permits from the State Excise Authority for any molasses discharge, and no clandestine clearance was established. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation and retained penalty, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.Issue 3: Appeal against the impugned order before the TribunalAfter considering the contentions of both parties and examining the facts, the Tribunal concluded that the allegations of clandestine removal were not substantiated. The Tribunal found the Show Cause Notice to be presumptive and based on assumptions, leading to the set aside of the confiscation and the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant in accordance with the law.