9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (6) TMI 554 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Central Excise duty demand, penalty, and confiscation of goods. 2. Seizure of iron and steel products not accounted for in the RG I register. 3. Demand of duty on goods cleared as other alloy steel products. Central Excise Duty Demand, Penalty, and Confiscation of Goods: The appeal was filed by M/s. Star Wire (India) Ltd. against the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of Central Excise duty, penalty imposition, and confiscation of goods. The Appellants manufacture iron and steel products. The Central Excise Officers seized goods for reprocessing without duty payment, leading to discrepancies in the Form V Register. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the duty demand, confiscation of goods, and the truck. However, the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 15,000 for goods and from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 10,000 for the truck. Seizure of Iron and Steel Products Not Accounted For: During a visit to the factory, Central Excise Officers seized iron and steel products not recorded in the RG I register. The seized defective products were not required to be entered in the register. The Adjudicating Authority found the goods liable for confiscation but reduced the fine from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000 based on the Consultant's argument regarding the fine amount. Demand of Duty on Goods Cleared as Other Alloy Steel Products: The officers seized goods from the truck and factory, and after examination, found them to be stainless steel material attracting a higher rate of Central Excise duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand on goods cleared as other alloy steel products. The Appellants argued against the penalty, requesting a re-test of the carbon content, but it was not permitted. The Departmental Representative presented evidence from Daily Production Reports showing the products as stainless steel. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand based on the Appellants' own documents and reduced the penalty to Rs. 60,000. The Appeal was partly allowed based on these findings.
|
