2008 (10) TMI 409 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of demand raised against the appellant invoking a larger period.
2. Eligibility of the impugned clearances for the Small Scale Industry (SSI) benefit.
3. Substantiation of the claim that the appellant applied for SSI registration in 1990.
4. Imposition of penalties under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER).

Analysis:

1. The appeal was remanded to the adjudicating authority in the first round for deciding the case afresh after providing the appellant with copies of correspondence relied on in the proceedings. The Joint Commissioner demanded an amount of Rs. 4,16,875/- as duty not paid by the appellants on clearances of goods manufactured by them. A fine of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed in lieu of confiscation, and a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the CER. The penalties were deemed reasonable and in accordance with the law.

2. The appellant claimed that the impugned clearances were eligible for the SSI benefit as they had applied for SSI registration in 1990. However, the evidence provided, including a sworn affidavit and a recommendation letter, did not substantiate this claim. The provisional SSI certificate was issued on 22-6-93, and without concrete evidence of the earlier application, the demand against the appellant was considered valid. As the appellant did not possess an SSI certificate during the material period, they were not entitled to the benefits under relevant notifications.

3. The appellant failed to provide substantial evidence supporting their claim that they had applied for SSI registration in 1990. The only evidence presented was a sworn affidavit of the Managing Director, who was deceased, and a recommendation letter without a clear indication of when the application was made. The absence of verifiable evidence led to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.

4. The penalties imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the CER were upheld as the appellant had contravened various provisions of the Central Excise Rules by clearing goods without possessing the required SSI certificate. The penalties were considered reasonable and justified based on the findings of the case.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed for lack of merit, as the impugned demand was deemed valid, the clearances were found ineligible for SSI benefits, and the penalties imposed were upheld as per the law.