2003 (11) TMI 473 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Limited issue of Commissioner not considering reconciliation submitted by appellants and conclusion on damaged stock.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-III, focusing on the Commissioner's failure to consider the reconciliation submitted by the appellants regarding damaged stock. The case involved discrepancies found during stock verification at the factory of the appellant, leading to a demand for duty, penalty, and confiscation. The initial order confirmed duty on shortages of sanitary wares and imposed a penalty. On appeal, the penalty was reduced, and the duty demand was partially set aside for further consideration. The issue of 3,090 damaged pieces was remanded for review by the Commissioner.

During the hearing, the appellants claimed that the 3,090 pieces were already destroyed on the department's orders, supported by a destruction certificate. The Commissioner, however, did not consider the reconciliation statement submitted by the appellants, asserting that the damaged pieces were already accounted for during verification. The Revenue supported the Commissioner's decision, stating the destruction certificate was irrelevant to the proceedings.

The Appellate Tribunal's previous order emphasized the need to re-examine the appellants' claim regarding damaged goods. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to consider the reconciliation statement and verification reports, specifically for the 3,090 damaged pieces. The Commissioner's decision was based on the lack of separate accounts for dunted and damaged goods, leading to the conclusion that the damaged stock was included in the dunted stock. The Commissioner's order highlighted the appellants' practice of applying for destruction without specifying the number of damaged pieces separately.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the reconciliation statement submitted for a different period was irrelevant to the issue at hand. The common account maintained by the appellants for dunted and damaged stock supported the Commissioner's conclusion. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's orders, leading to the rejection of the appeal.