9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Duty demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise - Allegations of shortage in stock and false claims of goods sent for job work and export - Lack of proper opportunity for cross-examination - Allegations of fraud and false documents - Requirement for pre-deposits Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi pertains to stay applications against the adjudication order issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. The order demanded approximately Rs. 2.2 crores as duty from the first appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in manufacturing various goods liable to Central Excise duty. The order also imposed penalties on both the first and second appellants. The Tribunal considered the discrepancy in stock during a stock taking exercise and the verification of goods claimed to be sent for job work and export. It was found that there was a significant shortage in stock, and the goods claimed to be sent were not actually dispatched to the intended parties, leading to the duty demand and penalties. The appellant contended that the order was passed without providing a proper opportunity for cross-examination, making the orders unsustainable. Additionally, the appellant argued that certain goods had been sent under CT-3 without duty payment, claiming they were not liable for duty on such supplies. On the contrary, the respondent argued that the case involved clear fraud, supported by evidence obtained during the investigation. The Managing Director admitted to clearing goods against false documents, further strengthening the case against the appellants. The respondent highlighted that the adjudicating authority had summoned the parties for cross-examination, but the appellants failed to attend, seeking adjournment. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue had a strong case, as the goods manufactured were duty liable if not exported. The evidence showed discrepancies in the dispatch of goods for job work or export, with parties either non-existent or not receiving any goods. The purported sales against CT-3 lacked credibility due to the absence of records for sales or consideration receipt. Based on the investigation evidence and the Managing Director's admission, the Tribunal upheld the findings in the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the first appellant to deposit Rs. One crore towards duty and Rs. 50 lakhs towards penalty, while the second appellant was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no justification for a full waiver from the pre-deposit requirement, ordering specific amounts to be deposited within a stipulated timeframe. Upon compliance with the pre-deposits, the remaining amounts would be waived, as per the judgment pronounced on 19-4-2006.
|
