2005 (10) TMI 336 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of duty and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the appellants.
2. Allegation of clandestine removal of goods and imposition of penalties.
3. Applicability of Notification No. 202/88 for duty exemption.
4. Time-barred show cause notice and penalties imposed on employees.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the liability of duty and penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the appellants, who were job workers converting H.R. coils into tubes for another company. The authorities suspected clandestine removal of goods, leading to detention and subsequent investigation. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed duty on the job worker, but dropped the penalty imposed on them while upholding penalties on the manufacturer and other employees.

2. The appellants raised three main points in their appeal against the order-in-appeal. Firstly, they argued that no concrete evidence of clandestine removal was presented, relying on a legal precedent. Secondly, they claimed eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 202/88 if the tubes were manufactured from non-removed H.R. coils. Lastly, they contended that the show cause notice was time-barred, questioning the penalties imposed on employees and the manufacturer.

3. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities based their conclusions on presumption and assumption without concrete evidence of clandestine removal. Lack of corroborative evidence, such as financial transactions or seized goods, led to the dismissal of the charges. Regarding the duty exemption claim, the Tribunal analyzed the notification's applicability and concluded that since the H.R. coils were imported duty-free, the exemption did not apply. Ultimately, the demand of duty was deemed unsustainable, leading to the set aside of penalties.

4. The personal penalties imposed under Rule 209A on other appellants were also set aside due to the lack of sustainable duty demand. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clinching evidence to support allegations of clandestine removal, highlighting the insufficiency of presumptions and assumptions in such cases. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed based on the lack of evidence supporting the charges.