2005 (6) TMI 357 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Substitution of respondent's name in the cause-title of the appeal memo.
2. Allegations of clandestine removal of excisable goods and imposition of duty and penalties.
3. Reliance on private note book entries for demand of duty.
4. Abatement of duty from sale price.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.
6. Validity of composite penalty under multiple provisions of law.
7. Challenge to redemption fines.

Analysis:

1. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the Department's application to substitute the respondent's name in the appeal memo with the "Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem" due to the undisputed fact that the subject matter of the appeal fell within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner.

2. The case involved allegations of clandestine removal of excisable goods, where the appellants were found with excess stock of branded tobacco seized by Central Excise officers. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand under relevant provisions and imposed penalties, leading to the present appeal.

3. The appellants argued that the demand of duty solely based on a private note book was unsustainable, citing precedent where similar note books were not accepted as evidence. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the entries should be corroborated by the person maintaining the note book. They found that duty could only be demanded on the quantity admitted in the original statement.

4. Regarding abatement of duty from the sale price, the appellants claimed entitlement under specific provisions of the Central Excise Act and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal agreed, directing the reworking of the assessable value based on the available benefits.

5. The imposition of penalty under Section 11AC was challenged by the appellants, arguing that it was not applicable during the period of dispute. The Tribunal concurred, setting aside the penalty under this section and highlighting the necessity for a split-up of penalties under different provisions.

6. The validity of a composite penalty under multiple penal provisions was contested, with the appellants citing previous Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal agreed that such a composite penalty was not sustainable in law, leading to the penalty on the appellants being overturned.

7. Lastly, the challenge to redemption fines was not found to be valid, and the Tribunal sustained the imposition of these fines.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the demand of duty, directed the Commissioner to re-quantify the duty after a hearing, set aside the penalty under Section 11AC, sustained the redemption fines, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.