2002 (4) TMI 443 - AT - Central Excise

Accountal of goods - Clandestine removal - Proof - Return of duty paid goods for repair - Penalty

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty and penalties.
2. Allegations of removing excisable goods without payment of duty.
3. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.
4. Confiscation of seized goods.
5. Redemption fine reduction.
6. Charges of removing newly manufactured goods as repaired goods.
7. Shortage and excess of excisable goods.
8. Imposition of penalties on different appellants.
9. Applicability of penalty provisions under the Central Excise Act.

Confirmation of Demand and Penalties:
The judgment involved three appeals against a common order confirming the demand of Central Excise duty, imposing penalties, and confiscating goods due to alleged removal without duty payment. The appellants argued that defective goods were repairable under Central Excise Rules, maintaining a register for repairs. The Revenue assumed defects were irreparable without evidence. The Appellants' duty payment history and minor defect repairs were highlighted to challenge the Revenue's assumptions.

Charges of Removing Excisable Goods:
The main charge was removing newly manufactured goods as repaired ones. The tribunal noted common trade practices of returning defective goods for repair and lack of evidence suggesting defects were unrepairable. Statements indicated most defects were repairable, challenging Revenue's findings. The tribunal remanded the matter to determine duty liability if parts were replaced in returned goods.

Shortage and Excess of Goods:
Regarding shortage and excess of goods, the tribunal upheld the demand for shortage but found insufficient evidence to support the appellant's defense for excess goods. The redemption fine for excess goods was reduced, and penalties were imposed on the appellant company for these discrepancies.

Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties were imposed on the appellant company for shortages and excesses, while penalties on individual appellants were set aside. The tribunal directed the appellant company to pay a reduced penalty and clarified that penalties under specific sections of the Central Excise Act could not be imposed for certain periods.

Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of with decisions on demand confirmation, penalties, confiscation, and charges of removing goods without duty payment. The tribunal upheld some charges, reduced fines, imposed penalties, and clarified penalty provisions under the Central Excise Act for different appellants.