2004 (8) TMI 594 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise confirming demand of Excise duty.
2. Allegations of evasion of duty and clandestine removal of goods.
3. Reliability of statements and documents seized during search operation.
4. Imposition of penalty for non-payment of Central Excise duty.

Issue 1 - Appeal Against Commissioner's Order:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner's order confirming the demand of Excise duty on M/s. Ganga Electrocast Pvt. Ltd. for non-payment of duty on finished goods. The appellant argued that the demand based on the note book of one director should be dropped since charges against another director were dropped. The appellant contended that the findings were based on assumptions and presumptions, citing relevant legal precedents to support their case.

Issue 2 - Allegations of Evasion and Clandestine Removal:
The Director of the firm confessed that final products were dispatched without proper documentation or payment of Central Excise duty. The appellant argued against the evasion of duty, claiming no intention to avoid payment and citing a pre-deposit made to avoid legal complications. However, the Respondent maintained that the clandestine removal of goods without duty payment was proven, justifying the duty demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.

Issue 3 - Reliability of Statements and Seized Documents:
The statements of the Directors and the documents seized during the search operation played a crucial role in establishing the non-payment of Central Excise duty. The confession by one Director admitting to goods dispatched without duty payment served as strong evidence of evasion. The Commissioner's decision was based on these admissions and material available, dismissing claims of assumptions or presumptions.

Issue 4 - Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant argued against the imposition of penalties, claiming no intention to evade duty or suppress facts. They cited legal judgments to support their stance. However, the Respondent justified the penalty based on the admission of non-payment of duty by the Director, indicating evasion and clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Commissioner, concluding that the order was based on evidence and admissions, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's order confirming the demand of Excise duty and imposition of penalties based on the admissions and evidence presented during the case.