BHUSHAN STEEL AND STRIPS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Rajesh Chhiber, learned Advocate, pleaded that the appellants are stocking their goods in a proper manner for which he has produced the proof and pleaded that the net weight is also mentioned on each of the package. Therefore, the excess found by the officers which is about 0.6% of the total weight may be due to calculation mistake. He also referred to the statement of Shri P.K. Aggarwal, General Manager, recorded on 5.9.2001 where in reply to question No. 2 he stated that difference as compared to the physical holding of the stock is negligible and could be on account of various reasons, such as recording the weight of the coils/products. He also referred to the decision of the Tribunal under Final Order No. A/1502/04 -NB(SM) dated 14.10.2004 wherein the case of appellants themselves proceedings were dropped on the ground that the verification carried out suffers from uncertainty. He also relied upon the following decisions - -

(2.) Shri P.M. Rao, learned JDR pleaded that in the past two cases booked against the appellants for excess and shortage, which were dropped only on this ground that there was uncertainty in weighment but he said that in the present case, panchnama clearly shows that Shri P.K. Agarwal, deputed few responsible persons of his factory for verification of the stock. The detail of the physical verification was prepared which was marked -A to the Panchnama. Therefore, their explanation regarding excess found now without any basis on a general statement that it is a small percentage of quantity weighed, should not be accepted. He relied on the following decisions:

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that on physical verification of the stock, central excise officers found the quantity of 89.890 MT of finished goods valued at Rs. 19,17,715 in excess than the recorded balance in production register. The explanation of the appellant's General Manager on the spot is that it may be due to various reasons such as recording weight of coils/product. Panchnama was accepted and it was never challenged. Thus, it is clear that no proper explanation was given for excess by the appellants. Since panchnama was never challenged, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that there could have been some mistake by the officers in recording weight. Therefore, I am satisfied that there had been excess stock which was not accounted for in the production register. Therefore, these goods which have not been accounted for in RG -1 register are liable for confiscation under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 as has been held by the lower authorities. I find that on earlier occasions also, there had been discrepancy and the appellants were let of in those cases. Now these cases cannot be taken in their defence for repeating the same mistake again and again. Therefore, I am not satisfied with the argument of the learned Counsel of the appellants that difference being a small percentage and in the past on identical grounds, the appellants were let of, so redemption fine and penalty may be set aside. I find that the value of the goods found in excess was Rs. 19,17,715 for which the redemption fine is only Rs. 50,000 which is reasonable. I also find that the penalty imposed on the appellants is reasonable. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the appeal and, accordingly, reject the same.