2000 (8) TMI 703 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate authority remands case for fresh decision on duty discrepancies, emphasizes meticulous documentation

The appellate authority remanded the case for a fresh decision due to discrepancies in the original order regarding unaccounted finished goods, ... Confiscation - Unaccountal of finished goods Issues:1. Unaccounted finished goods found in excess in factory premises.2. Shortage of duty paid raw material on which Modvat credit was availed.3. Confiscation of seized goods, recovery of Central Excise duty, and imposition of penalty.Issue 1: Unaccounted finished goods found in excess in factory premisesThe appellants, engaged in manufacturing Woollen Yarn, had 75 Cartons of Woollen Yarn weighing 1125 Kgs. valued at Rs. 4,50,000/- found unaccounted for during a physical verification, exceeding the balance in the RG.I Register. Additionally, 1137.100 Kgs. of raw material (Nylon Staple Fibre) valued at Rs. 1,80,051/- involving duty of Rs. 41,412/- was found short. The proceedings resulted in the confiscation of the seized goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The Addl. Commissioner confirmed the duty amounts and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q.Issue 2: Shortage of duty paid raw material on which Modvat credit was availedThe party contended that the raw material sent for dyeing in their premises did not have any shortage. However, the adjudicating authority referred to a statement by the Joint Managing Director admitting the shortage and willingness to pay the Central Excise duty on the short goods. Consequently, the duty on the raw material found short, on which Modvat credit was availed, was confirmed on the appellants as no plausible explanation for the shortage was provided.Issue 3: Confiscation of seized goods, recovery of Central Excise duty, and imposition of penaltyUpon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority's findings, leading to a further appeal. The appellate authority noted discrepancies in the original order regarding the unaccounted finished goods and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to examine documents proving duty payment on the goods received back by the appellants. The duty on the raw material found short was upheld, along with the penalty imposed. The appeal was partly allowed for a de novo adjudication on the finished goods and confirmed the duty and penalty regarding the shortage of raw material.This judgment highlights the importance of thorough documentation and explanation in excise duty matters, emphasizing the need for proper verification and examination of records to substantiate claims and address discrepancies effectively.