2005 (6) TMI 495 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Clandestine removal - Accountal of goods - Demand - Clandestine removal - Accountal of goods

Summary

Issues: Unaccounted manufacture, clandestine non-duty removal, duty demands, penalty under Section 11AC, confiscation liability, misdirected demand, job worker's liability, remand.

In this case, the appellant was facing allegations of unaccounted manufacture and clandestine non-duty removal. The case was based on non-entry in RG-I of a certain quantity of PTY and removal of PTY without payment of duty. Consequently, duty demands, penalty under Section 11AC, and confiscation liability under Rule 173Q(2) were imposed on the appellant. However, it was noted that the show cause notice did not specifically address the entire quantity of goods removed clandestinely, and part of the demand was related to valuation issues. The appellant argued that the demand was misdirected towards goods allegedly manufactured by a job worker, but no findings were presented on this matter.

The Tribunal highlighted that mere non-accountability in RG-I does not automatically imply clandestine removal. Evidence of such removal, along with production records, is necessary to establish the case. Moreover, if goods were manufactured by a job worker, the duty demand should be directed towards the job worker, not the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the original order and remitted the case back to the adjudicator for a rehearing to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the job worker's liability and to decide all issues afresh.

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The decision emphasized the importance of proper evidence and correct allocation of liability in cases involving unaccounted manufacture and duty removal, particularly when job workers are involved.