C.C.E. Vs. Balu Ram Harnam Dass Steel Rolling - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....and gone through the record. the perusal of the record shows that 24.695 mt m.s. bars, on taking physical verification of the stock lying in the factory premises of the respondents, by the central excise officers were found excess than what was recorded in the record. the stock verification report was prepared at the spot which was signed by shri surinder kumar, authorized signatory of the respondents in token of its correctness. therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that method adopted by the department for arriving at the excess goods, was not proper and that the learned commissioner (appeals) has rightly so held in the impugned order while reversing the order-in-original, cannot be legally accepted. when the authorized signatory of the respondents was present at the spot and admitted the correctness of the stock verification report and signed the same, the respondents are bound by the same. it was an admission on his part that the goods mentioned in the verification report were correctly found unaccounted and the same is binding on the respondents, especially when it was never retracted by the maker. under the law, admission is a substantive.....

Judgment:

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order, the issue relates to the confiscation of the excess unaccounted goods, imposition of redemption fine and the penalty.

2. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that 24.695 MT M.S. Bars, on taking physical verification of the stock lying in the factory premises of the respondents, by the Central Excise Officers were found excess than what was recorded in the record. The stock verification report was prepared at the spot which was signed by Shri Surinder Kumar, authorized signatory of the respondents in token of its correctness. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents that method adopted by the Department for arriving at the excess goods, was not proper and that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly so held in the impugned order while reversing the order-in-original, cannot be legally accepted. When the authorized signatory of the respondents was present at the spot and admitted the correctness of the stock verification report and signed the same, the respondents are bound by the same. It was an admission on his part that the goods mentioned in the verification report were correctly found unaccounted and the same is binding on the respondents, especially when it was never retracted by the maker. Under the law, admission is a substantive piece of evidence and can be accepted sufficient and conclusive piece of evidence. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the confiscation of the unaccounted goods, redemption fine and penalty cannot be sustained and is set aside.

3. Since the respondents have failed to account for the goods, they are liable to be penalised under Rule 173Q. The adjudicating authority has rightly through the order-in-original ordered the confiscation of the goods, imposed redemption fine and the penalty on the respondents, and that order is restored. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the duty involved on the excess goods, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) and penalty to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Except for this modification the order-in-original is restored and the appeal of the Revenue is disposed of in the above terms.