2004 (12) TMI 495 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties under Section 11A(2) against the appellant and partners on clandestine production and clearance of chewing tobacco.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Waiver of Pre-Deposit of Duty and Penalties:
The case involved applications for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties confirmed under Section 11A(2) against the appellant and partners for clandestine production and clearance of chewing tobacco. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik had confirmed a duty of Rs. 3,76,49,018/- and penalties on various individuals associated with the appellant. The department's case was based on investigations revealing clandestine activities by the appellant, including unaccounted raw tobacco and clearance of chewing tobacco without duty payment.

2. Evidence and Oral Testimonies:
The department's case relied on oral evidence, statements of suppliers and transporters, and documents like goods challans. However, many witnesses retracted their statements during the proceedings. The credibility of witnesses, including a Central Excise Clerk of the appellant, was questioned. Transport documents did not conclusively prove excess raw tobacco receipt by the appellant. The documentary evidence did not firmly establish the clearance of finished goods, and discrepancies in the department's calculations were highlighted.

3. Prima Facie Case and Decision:
Upon analysis, the tribunal found that a strong prima facie case was made by the applicants regarding the lack of concrete evidence supporting the department's claims. The tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit of duty and penalties, staying the recovery pending further appeals. The tribunal scheduled the appeals for a detailed hearing in the future due to the substantial amount involved.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily revolved around the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties concerning clandestine production and clearance of chewing tobacco. The analysis focused on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the department's claims, witness credibility issues, and discrepancies in the department's calculations. The tribunal found in favor of the applicants, holding that a strong prima facie case was established, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and a stay on recovery pending further appeals.