Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (3) TMI 364 - AT - Central ExciseConfiscation of seized goods along with truck - Clandestine removal - Demand and penalty - shortage of the finished goods - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the said RG 23A Part II Folio No. 27 and invoice No. 235, dated 23-5-96 it can be concluded that the appellants had prepared the duty paying document and had debited the duty liability in RG 23A Part II. The appellants contention also is fortified from the fact that the RG 1 of the appellant was also up date with the clearance entries of 23-5-96. From the above facts and circumstances, it is very clear that the seized goods found in the truck were duty discharged goods and not liable for confiscation. The lower authorities have brushed aside these protest on the ground that the appellants representatives have agreed to the correctness of the stock verification. To my mind, I find that the appellants contention that there can be error in eye estimation of the physical stock seems to be correct. I find that the authorities have calculated a shortage of 19.620 M.T. out of the recorded stock of 1042.715 M.T. against physical stock of 1023.093 M.T. The shortage in terms of percentage works out about 1.91% of the total stock. This may be also due to the fact that there was no physical weighment of the finished goods. Errors may creep in the eye estimation of huge quantity of the stocks. To come to conclusion that there was clandestine removal of goods due to shortage of finished goods, that also on eye estimation, without any further corroborative evidence, would be wrong. In this case the authorities have not produced any corroborative evidence as regards clandestine removal of finished goods. The authorities sought to tie up the seized goods in the truck as corroborative evidence, but since that allegation has failed, as held by me in earlier paragraph, it cannot be said that the appellant has clandestinely removed the finished goods found short. Thus, the impugned order-in-appeal, to the extent it affects the current appellant, is set aside. Appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any to the appellants.
|