2005 (12) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancies in stock taking leading to duty demand and denial of Modvat credit.
2. Clearance of consignments under the same invoice without discharging duty liability.
3. Reduction in duty demand and setting aside of penalty on the authorized signatory.
4. Assessment of penalty on the appellant for deliberate evasion of Central Excise duty.
5. Imposition of penalty on the authorized representative attending to financial matters.

Analysis:

1. The case involves discrepancies in stock taking by Central Excise officers at the appellant's factory, leading to duty demand and denial of Modvat credit. The appellant contested the findings, citing errors in the stock taking process. Despite subsequent stocktaking showing no discrepancies, the Joint Commissioner upheld the duty demand and denied Modvat credit, imposing penalties on the assessee and the authorized signatory.

2. The issue of clearance of consignments under the same invoice without discharging duty liability was raised. The Commissioner accepted most objections raised by the appellant but upheld the duty demand for clearances under the same invoice. The tribunal found clear evidence of duty evasion through invoices and duty records, rejecting the appellant's appeal against the duty demand.

3. The reduction in duty demand and setting aside of penalty on the authorized signatory were contested by the Revenue in their appeals. The tribunal agreed with the Revenue, reinstating the duty and Modvat demands from the adjudication order. The deliberate evasion of duty through repeat clearance under the same invoice justified the penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on the appellant.

4. In assessing the penalty on the appellant for deliberate evasion of Central Excise duty, the tribunal reinstated the duty and Modvat demands. The tribunal found evidence of deliberate evasion through repeat clearance of excisable goods under the same invoice, justifying the penalty imposed on the appellant.

5. The imposition of a penalty on the authorized representative attending to financial matters was challenged. The tribunal rejected the plea for imposing a penalty on the authorized representative, noting that he was only a financial representative and not directly involved in the evasion. The appeal seeking a penalty on the authorized representative was dismissed, upholding the original decision.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the duty demands, denial of Modvat credit, and penalties imposed on the appellant for deliberate evasion of Central Excise duty. The appeals by both parties were decided in accordance with the findings on discrepancies in stock taking and clearance of consignments under the same invoice.