1997 (11) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Reinstates Penalty for Steel Ingot Production from Unaccounted Scrap

The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal favoring respondents against the Order-in-Original by the Dy. Collector, reinstating the penalty imposed for ... Demand - Clandestine removal - Shortage Issues:Challenge to Order-in-Appeal by Commissioner of Central Excise against Order-in-Original by Dy. Collector regarding central excise duty and penalty imposed on manufacturing steel ingots from unaccounted iron and steel scrap.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, contesting the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) that favored the respondents against the Order-in-Original by the Dy. Collector. The Dy. Collector demanded central excise duty and imposed a penalty on the respondents for manufacturing steel ingots from unaccounted iron and steel scrap. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the Dy. Collector's order due to lack of corroborative evidence supporting the alleged shortage, as only visual assessment was conducted, and no shortage of other required inputs was identified. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the department's case lacking and allowed the appeal of the respondents, leading to the current appeal.The appellant Commissioner argued that the respondents' authorized representative admitted the use of unaccounted iron and steel scrap in manufacturing steel ingots, which were sent to their branch office. The appellant supported the Dy. Collector's findings and contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the order. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Commissioner (Appeals)' observations, stating that the physical examination of raw materials was confirmed during cross-examination and that the shortage was acknowledged by the respondents' representative. The explanation provided for the shortage was deemed unacceptable, as attributing it to inadvertent recording errors was rejected. The Tribunal distinguished a cited Supreme Court case involving retraction from the present case, where no valid alternative explanation was presented. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and reinstated the Order-in-Original, upholding the penalty imposed due to the duty amount involved.In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Dy. Collector's adjudication was appropriate, while the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in overturning the decision. The lack of valid alternative explanations for the shortage led to the restoration of the original order, emphasizing the importance of proper record-keeping and accountability in excise duty matters.