2008 (12) TMI 606 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
- Non-recording of production in re-rolling mills despite significant electricity consumption.
- Allegations of clandestine removal of goods produced without payment of duty.
- Discrepancies in invoices and transportation records.
- Admissibility of Director's statements as evidence.
- Applicability of penalty on the Director.

Non-recording of Production:
The case involved the appellants not recording production in their re-rolling mills despite substantial electricity consumption. The Director admitted to the company not recording the production of CTD bars proportionately based on electricity consumption for the relevant months. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellants argued that in the initial months of operation, re-rolling mills might not have significant production due to the need for production improvements. However, the Tribunal found it implausible that over 1.15 lakh units of electricity were consumed without any production. The lack of evidence supporting the appellants' claim that all production was wasted further weakened their case. The Director's admission of clandestine removal, both initially and after 15 months, supported the Revenue's position.

Allegations of Clandestine Removal:
The Revenue accused the appellants of clandestine removal of goods produced without paying duty. The Department presented evidence of two clearances under the same invoice number, indicating illicit removals. Additionally, the transporter confirmed the transportation of goods to Mumbai, including to the appellants' own firm. The existence of a second invoice book with identical serial numbers raised suspicions, further supported by the transporter's unretracted statement. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence established that the appellants produced goods as claimed by the Revenue and cleared them without paying duty.

Discrepancies in Invoices and Transportation Records:
The discrepancies in invoices and transportation records played a crucial role in the case. The Department highlighted the existence of two clearances under the same invoice number, indicating illicit removals. The transporter's admission of transporting two consignments with the same invoice number, along with the lack of explanation for the duplicate invoice book, strengthened the Revenue's case. These discrepancies, coupled with the lack of evidence from the appellants, supported the conclusion of clandestine removal.

Admissibility of Director's Statements:
The admissibility of the Director's statements as evidence was contested. While the Chartered Accountant argued that the Director's statements were made under pressure and should not be considered valid, the Tribunal found the Director's repeated admission of clandestine removal, even after 15 months, as voluntary and credible. The lack of retractions from the Director further supported the reliability of the statements, contributing to the Tribunal's decision against the appellants.

Applicability of Penalty on the Director:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of imposing a penalty on the Director. While penalty equal to duty was imposed on the appellant-company, the Tribunal deemed the penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the Director as harsh. Consequently, the penalty on the Director was reduced to a nominal amount of Rs. 1,000. The Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the appellants but modified the penalty imposed on the Director based on the circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised in the case, including the non-recording of production, allegations of clandestine removal, discrepancies in invoices and transportation records, the admissibility of the Director's statements, and the applicability of the penalty on the Director.

← Previous Next →