2006 (6) TMI 295 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demands on CTD Bars
2. Duty demands on Channels
3. Duty demand on Boring/Turning Scrap
4. Penalties imposed on company officials

Analysis:

1. Duty demands on CTD Bars:
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Original confirming duty demands on CTD Bars under proviso to Section 11A(1) of CE Act. The Commissioner found deliberate non-payment of duty as the goods were cleared without proper documentation. The appellant failed to provide evidence of purchase of goods of dia lesser than 10 mm. The duty demands were upheld, and a penalty was imposed on the company.

2. Duty demands on Channels:
In appeal Nos. 77 and 78/2004, duty demands on Channels were confirmed under proviso to Section 11A(1) of CE Act. The Commissioner denied exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. for goods removed for construction of sheds within the factory. The appellant's claim of exemption was rejected as the shed was not considered a capital good. The duty demands were upheld, and penalties were imposed on company officials.

3. Duty demand on Boring/Turning Scrap:
A duty demand was imposed on the quantity of Boring/Turning Scrap manufactured and cleared without payment of duty under proviso to Section 11A(1) of CE Act. The appellant failed to pay duty on the cleared scrap, leading to the demand.

4. Penalties imposed on company officials:
Penalties were imposed on Shri G. Satish, Joint Managing Director, and Shri N. V. Jayaram, Asst. Manager, under Rule 209A of CE Rules, 1944. The penalties were justified based on the deliberate non-payment of duty and non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

In the judgment, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had not discharged duty for goods cleared as "second sales" or for MS Channels used in shed construction. The benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was deemed inapplicable as the shed did not qualify as a capital good. The Tribunal cited previous rulings to support the Revenue's case, emphasizing the importance of duty payment and compliance. The appeals were dismissed based on the Commissioner's detailed examination of the issues and the lack of merit in the appellant's challenges.