2004 (2) TMI 631 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand affirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Machines imported for repair - Duty evasion - Confiscation of machines - Redemption fine and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The appellants contested the duty demand imposed on them for sending imported machines for repair to another unit without informing the Department. The Counsel argued that no intimation was necessary as duty had been paid and Modvat credit taken. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the record, with machines not installed in the factory as claimed but shown as lying in stock. The absence of evidence regarding dispatch for repair and lack of proper entries raised doubts. The Tribunal noted attempts to conceal the true nature of the transaction, indicating duty evasion.

The Tribunal emphasized that under Rule 57AC, failure to receive the machines back within 180 days from the job worker would disallow credit. Despite opportunities, the appellants failed to provide necessary records or appear before the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand due to procedural violations and lack of intimation to the Department. The Tribunal concluded that the removal of goods without following proper procedures constituted duty evasion, justifying the confirmed duty demand.

Regarding confiscation, the Tribunal rejected the argument that machines could not be confiscated, highlighting the duty evasion as grounds for confiscation. The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties and redemption fine, finding no legal flaws in the impugned order. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed based on the established duty evasion and procedural irregularities, leading to the affirmation of the duty demand, confiscation of machines, and penalty imposition.