2001 (5) TMI 295 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand due to alleged shortage of fabrics processed by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the duty demand based on the alleged shortage of fabrics processed by them, claiming that there was no actual shortage and that the officers willfully recorded false shortages during the stock verification process. The appellant's director even wrote a letter to the Deputy Collector explaining the situation, but the Collector did not consider the details provided in response to the show cause notice. The appellant argued that the officers refused to acknowledge that the goods they recorded as short were actually present on the premises.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention, stating that the stock verification process took place over seven days continuously, during which the appellant's requests for re-verification were duly noted in the panchanama. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's refusal to sign the panchanama did not invalidate the findings, as there is no legal requirement for the person from whom goods were seized to sign the document. The Tribunal emphasized that the presence of independent witnesses who signed the panchanama added credibility to the process, and the appellant did not specifically request their cross-examination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the letter delivered to the Deputy Collector after the stock taking could have provided an opportunity for manipulation of stock records. The Tribunal found it suspicious that no action was taken by the appellant during the seven-day verification period to escalate their concerns to higher authorities within the Department. As a result, any duty payments made by the appellant after the stock verification would not be related to the goods found short and would not impact the confirmed duty demand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the duty demand based on the findings of the stock verification process and the lack of substantial evidence or actions by the appellant to support their claims of no shortage.