2008 (7) TMI 773 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - Evidence - Demand - Time Limitation - Held that - the demand notice was issued in August 1998 much beyond the normal period of six months after the department came to know of the alleged clandestine production and clearances. In the circumstances the ingredients of the proviso to Section 11A did not exist for invoking the longer period to demand duty. The demand is time-barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to demand of duty, confiscation of property, and imposition of penalty; Appeal against penalty imposed on partner; Appeal by Revenue seeking penalty, interest, assessable value determination, and abatement denial; Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty; Time-barred demand notice.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Demand of Duty, Confiscation, and Penalty:
- M/s Rattan Steel Works contested the demand of duty, confiscation of assets, and penalty imposed. The case involved a significant duty amount, confiscation of property, and a substantial penalty.
- The partners of RSW, including Shri Harjit Singh, challenged penalties imposed on them. The Revenue also appealed against the order to impose penalties, demand interest, determine assessable value, and deny abatements.
- The impugned order highlighted the evasion of Central Excise duty by RSW, leading to the demand and penalties. The Commissioner's order was based on findings of clandestine clearances and non-compliance with excise formalities.

2. Alleged Evasion of Central Excise Duty:
- The case involved allegations of evasion of Central Excise duty by RSW during specific financial years. Investigations revealed discrepancies in production quantities and power consumption.
- Statements from various parties in the iron and steel trade indicated potential evasion. The Commissioner quantified the duty based on these statements and non-compliance with excise formalities.
- The appellants challenged the order, citing contradictions in third-party statements, lack of corroboration, and retraction of confessional statements. They argued that the demand was time-barred and solely based on power consumption.

3. Time-Barred Demand Notice:
- The investigation was completed in April 1997, but the Show Cause Notice was issued in August 1998, beyond the normal six-month period. The appellants contended that the demand was time-barred.
- The Tribunal agreed that the demand notice was issued beyond the statutory limitation period, rendering the demand and penalties unsustainable. As per Section 11A, the longer period for demanding duty was not applicable in this case.
- Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of RSW and its partner, Shri Harjit Singh. The appeal by the Revenue failed due to the time-barred nature of the demand.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, showcases the intricate details of the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.