2000 (12) TMI 870 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Duty on removal of components.
2. Duty on removal of finished excisable goods.
3. Duty on removal of finished excisable goods under non-returnable delivery challans.
4. Procedural compliance and time-barred demands.
5. Confiscation and penalties.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Duty on Removal of Components:
The investigating authorities found a discrepancy between the raw materials received and the finished products, suggesting clandestine removal of components. The Commissioner confirmed duty demands on M/s. SCL for components whose weight exceeded the raw materials received for moulding.

2. Duty on Removal of Finished Excisable Goods:
The Commissioner confirmed duty on finished excisable goods (LBS, TC, PX, conduit tubings) removed without proper challans. The appellants argued that these goods were exported and hence not liable for duty. The Tribunal noted that the goods were indeed exported and that the demands were not justified as per Rule 13 and the relevant Notification.

3. Duty on Removal of Finished Excisable Goods Under Non-returnable Delivery Challans:
The Commissioner found that M/s. SCL had cleared finished goods under non-returnable delivery challans without receiving raw materials under any challan. The Tribunal held that since the goods were exported, the demands were not sustainable.

4. Procedural Compliance and Time-barred Demands:
The appellants contended that the demands were barred by time and that all clearances were made under Rule 57F(4) in bond. The Tribunal agreed that there was no suppression of facts and that the demands beyond six months were time-barred. The Tribunal also noted that procedural lapses, such as not executing a bond, should not deny substantive benefits like Modvat credit.

5. Confiscation and Penalties:
The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of reprocessable scrap, slag, and channels scrap, and imposed penalties on M/s. SCL, SEPL, and SEL. The Tribunal set aside the penalties and confiscation orders, stating that no duty was chargeable on goods manufactured for export. However, the Tribunal agreed that some penalty might be imposed for admitted clearances of samples without payment of duty, and remanded this issue for re-adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the duty demands, penalties, and confiscation orders, except for the admitted amount related to sample clearances, which was remanded for re-adjudication.