2006 (1) TMI 383 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation and penalty imposition.
2. Short-levy demand due to clandestine production and clearance of excisable goods.
3. Dispute over production register and challan book entries.
4. Reduction of duty demand for goods cleared for job work.
5. Clearance to 100% EOU and eligibility for duty-free clearance.
6. Reduction of duty demand and penalty imposition.
7. Revenue's appeal on treating goods value as cum-duty and data presented to banks.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves an appeal where both the assessee and revenue challenge the same order, leading to a common decision on duty demand confirmation, penalty imposition, and interest charges.

2. The impugned order confirmed duty demand of Rs. 3,68,690/- along with an equal penalty, citing short-levy demand due to clandestine production and clearance of excisable goods without duty payment, supported by evidence from Production/Roll Weighment Register and Challan books recovered during an inspection.

3. The appellant contested the responsibility for the production register maintained by a laborer and the sales indicated in the challan book, arguing that some goods were cleared for job work and returned, thus not constituting clandestine removal without duty payment.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the private records, affirming the authenticity of the production register and challan entries as evidence of clandestine production and removal, while allowing a reduction of duty demand by Rs. 58,596 for goods cleared for job work but dismissing the claim for duty-free clearance to 100% EOU due to lack of requisite documentation.

5. Consequently, the duty demand was reduced by Rs. 58,596, and the penalty was fixed at Rs. 2 lakhs, granting partial relief to the appellant based on the circumstances and findings regarding the nature of clearances and documentation.

6. The revenue's appeal challenging the treatment of goods value as cum-duty and the reliance on data presented to banks was dismissed, emphasizing the settled law on sale prices treatment and the lack of evidence supporting the reported production and stock position.

7. Ultimately, both appeals were decided in favor of the appellant to the extent of the duty demand reduction and penalty imposition, while rejecting the revenue's contentions, concluding the judgment delivered by the Tribunal.