2002 (2) TMI 1253 - AT - Central Excise

Natural justice - Documents - Non-supply of relied upon documents - Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal - Panchnama - Defective - Penalty - Mandatory penalty

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty and penalties by the Commissioner.
2. Allegations of violation of natural justice and defective panchnama.
3. Merits of the case - duty evasion and use of parallel set of invoices.
4. Reduction and setting aside of penalties on different appellants.

Confirmation of duty and penalties by the Commissioner:
The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Original confirming duty of Rs. 1,39,49,680 with penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 209A. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing wires and cables and were found to have used two sets of invoices for duty evasion. Despite denial, the Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties.

Allegations of violation of natural justice and defective panchnama:
The appellants argued that documents were not supplied to them, violating natural justice, and the panchnama was defective and vague. However, the Tribunal found that all necessary documents were provided earlier, and there was no breach of natural justice. The panchnama was deemed sufficient as it contained details of seized records.

Merits of the case - duty evasion and use of parallel set of invoices:
The duty demand was upheld based on documentary evidence, including admissions by one of the appellants regarding the use of two sets of invoices. Records from authorities confirmed evasion, and the authenticity of inspection records was unquestioned. The evasion was evident from the comparison of documents and admissions by the appellants.

Reduction and setting aside of penalties on different appellants:
The Tribunal modified the order by setting aside penalties under Section 11AC due to the prior period of duty evasion. Penalties on individual appellants were reduced or set aside based on their roles in the evasion. Penalties were reduced for some appellants and completely waived for others who had minimal involvement.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand but made adjustments to the penalties imposed, considering the roles of individual appellants in the evasion. The order was modified accordingly, and the appeals were disposed of based on the revised penalties for each appellant.