2002 (2) TMI 541 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 1/93 evasion by M/s. SCM and M/s. SII
2. Clandestine manufacturing and duty evasion of BCS and Sodium Sulphate
3. Alleged clandestine clearance by M/s. WCPL
4. Imposition of penalties on M/s. WCPL, M/s. SCM, SII, and individuals
5. Duty evasion involvement of specific individuals

Issue 1:
The first issue revolves around whether M/s. SCM and M/s. SII wrongly benefited from Notification No. 1/93, leading to central excise duty evasion. The appellants contested this allegation, arguing that the units were separately registered and licensed for production. They emphasized differences in product grades and pricing, challenging the Revenue's evidence of logo usage. Despite the Revenue's contentions, the appellants maintained that no duty evasion occurred.

Issue 2:
Regarding clandestine manufacturing and duty evasion of BCS and Sodium Sulphate, the Revenue alleged that WCPL, SCM, and SII were involved. The appellants refuted these claims, citing proper classification lists, audit checks, and finalized findings from previous orders. They argued against the imposition of duty demands, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's allegations.

Issue 3:
The third issue pertains to the alleged clandestine clearance by M/s. WCPL, as indicated by discrepancies between income tax returns and clearances reflected in the RG-1 register. The appellants challenged these allegations, questioning the basis for the demand and asserting that assessments were conducted regularly, negating any intentional suppression or duty evasion.

Issue 4:
Regarding penalties under various Central Excise Rules, the appellants contested the imposition, highlighting deficiencies in the show cause notice and lack of specific attributions of offenses. They argued against penalties, emphasizing procedural irregularities and the absence of clear penalty amounts disclosed in the notice.

Issue 5:
The final issue involved the imposition of penalties on specific individuals for their alleged involvement in duty evasion. The appellants argued against these penalties, citing procedural flaws in the notice and the absence of specific offenses attributed to the individuals. They contended that the case lacked substantial evidence to support the penalties imposed.

In the judgment, the Appellate Tribunal found that several points raised by the appellants remained unanswered in the adjudication order. As a result, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeals to the Commissioner for a fresh adjudication, providing the appellants with a fair opportunity to present their case and access necessary documents. The decision to remand the appeals was made in the interest of justice to ensure a comprehensive review of the issues raised by the appellants.