2007 (7) TMI 553 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside original authority's order regarding excess raw materials found at a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing grey fabrics.

Analysis:
1. The Department's appeal was lodged against the Commissioner (Appeals) order that overturned the original authority's decision regarding excess raw materials discovered at a 100% EOU involved in manufacturing grey fabrics. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original authority's order dated 30-6-2004, which had led to the appeal.

2. The respondent's firm, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing grey fabrics, was found with excess raw materials, specifically POY/Texturised yarn, during a visit by officers on 14-11-2000. The excess raw materials were valued at Rs. 62,759 and weighed 1045.980 kgs. The Executive Director of the company admitted to the excess raw materials in his statement dated 21-3-2001, attributing it to a possible calculation error or machine discrepancy.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant unit being a 100% EOU should have been eligible for duty-free procurement of raw materials. The Commissioner noted the absence of evidence indicating illicit procurement or intention to conceal the seized goods. The deposition of the company's authorized person and Executive Director suggesting a calculation mistake was considered significant. The Commissioner concluded that the methodology used to determine the excess stock of raw material was flawed, leading to the benefit of doubt favoring the appellants.

4. The Commissioner's findings were upheld, highlighting the entitlement of a 100% EOU to duty-free raw material. The explanation provided by the appellant unit attributing the excess raw materials to an accounting error was deemed plausible, further reinforcing the decision.

5. The Tribunal found no valid grounds to challenge the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reasoning and conclusions. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the appellants, thereby upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and rejecting the Department's contentions.