1993 (12) TMI 123 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Orders on TV Set Discrepancies

UPTRON INDIA LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, upheld the adjudicating authority's orders in two appeals concerning alleged excesses and shortages of TV sets ... Stock-taking shortages and excesses Issues: Alleged excesses and shortage of TV sets during stock verification, confiscation, levy of duty, imposition of penalty, redemption fine, appeal against adjudicating authority's order.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involved two appeals concerning the alleged excesses and shortages of TV sets discovered during stock verification at the appellant's factory. The first appeal, E/2545/89-NRB, challenged the confiscation of 131 TV sets found in excess and unaccounted for, along with the levy of duty on 58 TV sets removed clandestinely and the imposition of a redemption fine and penalty. The second appeal, E/2546/89-NRB, contested the confiscation of 117 TV sets found in excess, duty levy on 50 TV sets removed clandestinely, and the imposition of a redemption fine and penalty. The appellant argued that the stocking of TV sets was not done uniformly and disputed the excess and shortage quantities found by the Department. The stock verification report, signed by the appellant's representative, was considered as an acceptance of the recorded figures. The appellant's explanation for the shortage was deemed unsatisfactory, and no satisfactory explanation was provided even for the admitted shortage. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contentions and upheld the impugned orders regarding excess and shortage findings.Regarding the excess stock, the appellant's explanation was not substantiated with documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Model of TV sets claimed to have been sent for testing and found that the appellant failed to provide supporting evidence for their claims. The appellant's inability to account for the excess detected led to the Tribunal's decision to uphold the findings on this aspect. The appellant's argument that the Collector was not authorized to impose a redemption fine when the goods were released provisionally was dismissed, as the Collector had ordered the realization of penalties, fines, and duties through the bank guarantee already furnished by the appellant.The Tribunal affirmed the impugned orders and dismissed the appeals, stating that the cross objections abate. The Assent by the Vice President concurred with the decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to maintain proper stock and accounts and providing unsatisfactory explanations for the excess and shortage of TV sets. The Vice President highlighted that provisional release of goods does not absolve the appellant from their duty, fine, and penalty liabilities. The judgment concluded that the appeals were liable to be dismissed, and they were accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal.