2008 (4) TMI 654 - AT - Central Excise

Demand and penalty - Clandestine removal - Penalty on Director - Held that - in view of the clear cut admission of the Director himself and the Manager, the payment of duty before issue of show cause notice is sufficient evidence. It is also noted that the Director s statement was recorded after nearly one year of the recovery of receipts which again goes in favour of the revenue. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the confirmation of demand and interest thereon, if any liable. I am unable to say agree that the Director has not physically dealt with the goods when clearance had been made without payment of duty with his knowledge. Therefore, the liability to penalty is sustained - having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the total amount of penalty on the Director is reduced to ₹ 10,000/- from ₹ 25,000/-. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty on the company and the Director.
- Reduction of penalty based on payment of duty before adjudication order.
- Imposition of penalty on the Director under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Confirmation of Demand and Penalty:
The case involved appeals against an order confirming the demand of duty and imposing penalties. The clandestine removal was detected through the recovery of lorry receipts, with no dispute about their genuineness. The buyer's name in the invoice could not be traced. The Director and Manager's admission statements were crucial evidence, leading to the confirmation of demand. The Director's statement, recorded after a year of receipt recovery, supported the revenue. The penalty on the company was reduced to 25% of the duty amount, following a High Court decision. The penalty on the Director was sustained due to his involvement in goods clearance without duty payment, despite no confiscation or physical handling of goods. The penalty on the Director was reduced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 10,000 based on the case's circumstances.

Reduction of Penalty:
The penalty on the company was reduced to 25% of the duty amount as the duty had been paid before the adjudication order. This reduction was in line with a decision from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, ensuring fairness in penalty imposition based on the timing of duty payment.

Imposition of Penalty on the Director:
The imposition of a penalty on the Director was upheld despite no physical handling of the goods or confiscation. The Director's knowledge of goods clearance without duty payment was deemed sufficient for penalty imposition. However, considering the case's specifics, the penalty on the Director was reduced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal's decision in Vishal Shah v. C.C.E., Thane-II was cited to support the imposition of penalty on the Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, emphasizing the importance of knowledge and involvement in excisable goods clearance.

This judgment highlights the importance of evidence, admission statements, and legal precedents in determining duty demand, penalty imposition, and reduction based on timely duty payment. The case underscores the significance of knowledge and involvement in excisable goods transactions when imposing penalties on company officials.