2006 (3) TMI 681 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Allegations of processing fabrics with intent to evade duty.
2. Duty demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner.
3. Confiscation and imposition of duty on seized goods.
4. Imposition of penalties on the appellants and M/s. Alpic (I).
5. Applicability of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
6. Confirmation of demands and sustainability of the orders.
7. Remittal of the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for clear findings.

Analysis:
1. The case involved allegations against M/s. Shiv Textiles for processing man-made fabrics with a predominance of polyester to evade duty, along with clandestine clearance of processed fabrics. The Joint Commissioner dropped some demands due to lack of proof, but confirmed others and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed full duty deposit, leading to an appeal. The Tribunal remitted the matter back, and the present order confirmed the duty liability on confiscated goods processed by M/s. Shiv Textiles.

2. Regarding unfinished fabrics of M/s. Alpic (I), the statement of the manager indicated clearance after stentering with power, justifying the confirmed duty demand. Penalties were imposed on M/s. Shiv Textiles and its partner, which were reviewed based on precedents. The complicity of M/s. Alpic (I) in duty evasion was established, leading to the confirmation of penalties.

3. The imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was upheld for M/s. Shiv Textiles but set aside for the partner. The penalties on M/s. Alpic (I) were confirmed. The orders were analyzed in comparison to relevant legal decisions to determine their correctness and applicability.

4. The Tribunal found flaws in the Commissioner's order, noting the lack of consideration for the appellants' submissions and non-application of mind in confirming demands. The confirmation of demands was deemed erroneous, leading to the setting aside of the order and remittal of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a clear and comprehensive decision on all raised issues.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeals for a fresh decision on the remanded issues, emphasizing the importance of a clear and reasoned decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) to determine any liabilities accurately. The appeals were disposed of accordingly on 31-3-2006.