2004 (4) TMI 396 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Clandestine removal - Double adjudication - Evidence - Statement - Partial acceptance

Summary

Issues:
1. Double adjudication on the same goods.
2. Acceptance of statement regarding clandestine removal.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 52A of Central Excise Rules.

Issue 1: Double adjudication on the same goods
The case involved the interception of a tempo loaded with processed fabrics, leading to a demand for duty. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued for clearing goods under parallel invoices without payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the argument that the goods seized earlier, for which duty was paid, were the same as those cleared under the parallel invoices. It was held that confirming the demand on this ground would amount to double adjudication on the same goods. The Commissioner reduced the duty demand and penalty based on this finding.

Issue 2: Acceptance of statement regarding clandestine removal
The Assistant Commissioner had imposed duty and penalty based on the admission of clandestine removal by the firm's proprietor. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the argument that the goods cleared under parallel invoices were the same as those seized earlier, for which duty was paid. The Commissioner held that the Revenue cannot accept part of a statement and reject the rest. The Tribunal upheld this finding, stating that the goods covered under the parallel invoices were the same as those seized earlier, and thus, there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 52A of Central Excise Rules
The Assistant Commissioner had imposed a personal penalty under Section 11AC and a penalty under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalties after accepting the argument that the goods cleared under parallel invoices were the same as those seized earlier, for which duty was paid. The Tribunal upheld the reduction in penalties, stating that there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal based on the circumstances of the case.

This judgment addressed the issues of double adjudication on the same goods, acceptance of statements regarding clandestine removal, and the imposition of penalties under relevant provisions. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing that the goods covered under parallel invoices were the same as those seized earlier, for which duty was paid. As a result, the duty demand was reduced, and penalties were also lowered. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, highlighting the importance of considering all aspects of a statement and avoiding double adjudication in such cases.