2004 (2) TMI 632 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegations of clandestine removal of excisable goods and duty evasion.
2. Allegations of removal of goods against parallel invoices.
3. Allegations of failure to produce proof of export of goods cleared under bond.
4. Justification of duty demands and penalties imposed.

Issue 1: Allegations of Clandestine Removal of Excisable Goods and Duty Evasion:
The appeals were against the Order-in-Original confirming duty liabilities and penalties imposed on the manufacturing company and its Joint Managing Director. The Commissioner alleged clandestine removal of goods based on discrepancies in stock statements, cost of production, and electricity consumption analysis. The Commissioner concluded that excess stock reported to the bank was actual production removed clandestinely, resulting in a duty demand of Rs. 21,24,090. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, stating that the evidence supported the charge of clandestine removal.

Issue 2: Allegations of Removal of Goods Against Parallel Invoices:
Another allegation was the removal of goods against parallel invoices, with discrepancies in party names and values compared to official records. The appellant admitted similarities in handwriting on duplicate invoices, indicating fraudulent activity. The duty amount quantified for these duplicate invoices was Rs. 8,88,850, with part payment already made. The Tribunal found the duty evasion on this count justified and confirmed the demand.

Issue 3: Allegations of Failure to Produce Proof of Export:
The appellants failed to produce proof of export for goods cleared under bond, leading to an alleged duty evasion of Rs. 25,200. The amount already deposited was appropriated. The Tribunal noted the failure to provide evidence of exportation and confirmed the appropriation of the deposited amount.

Issue 4: Justification of Duty Demands and Penalties Imposed:
The appellants did not appear for hearings, leading to an ex parte order confirming duty demands and penalties. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' defense arguments, including the lack of relevant documents and denial of natural justice. The defense that bank statements alone cannot prove higher production was dismissed, as collateral evidence supported the conclusion of evasion. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' submissions and upheld the duty demands and penalties imposed, ultimately rejecting the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings on clandestine removal, parallel invoices, and failure to produce proof of export. The duty demands and penalties imposed were deemed justified, leading to the rejection of the appeals.