2007 (6) TMI 487 - Commission - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Wrongful availing of concessional duty rate under Notification No. 8/97-C.E.
2. Allegations of fake bills for domestic cotton purchase.
3. Maintenance of separate records for indigenous and imported raw materials.
4. Calculation of duty liability and interest.
5. Penalty and prosecution immunity.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Wrongful Availing of Concessional Duty Rate under Notification No. 8/97-C.E.:
The applicant, a 100% EOU, was accused of clearing cotton yarn and open end yarn in the DTA by wrongly availing the concessional duty rate under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. The department issued three Show Cause Notices demanding duty and alleging willful suppression of facts to evade duty. The applicant admitted an additional duty liability of Rs. 92,05,416/- against the total demanded duty of Rs. 4,68,68,877/-. The Settlement Commission directed the applicant to deposit the admitted duty amount within 30 days and report compliance.

2. Allegations of Fake Bills for Domestic Cotton Purchase:
The department alleged that the applicant procured fake bills from M/s. Kirti Corporation to show DTA despatches of ring spun yarn as manufactured from domestic cotton. The Show Cause Notice was based on departmental enquiry and admissions by the applicant. The applicant contested the demand for the period 2000-01 but admitted the demand for the period 2001-02, excluding the Additional Excise Duty (TTA) as per the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Nahar Ind. Enterprises.

3. Maintenance of Separate Records for Indigenous and Imported Raw Materials:
The department argued that the applicant did not maintain separate records to show the production of open end yarn from indigenous raw materials, as required by Notification No. 8/97-C.E. The applicant maintained separate records up to the stage of waste but not for the final product. The Settlement Commission found that the applicant maintained separate records for raw materials and waste but not for the final product, thus denying the benefit of Notification No. 8/97-C.E.

4. Calculation of Duty Liability and Interest:
The Settlement Commission reviewed the duty calculations and found that the applicant had correctly calculated the duty based on the proportion of indigenous and imported raw materials. The Commission settled the duty liability at Rs. 3,22,37,717/- against the demanded Rs. 4,68,67,877/-. Interest was levied at 10% per annum from the date the duty was due until paid. The applicant was directed to deposit the balance duty amount within 30 days and furnish proof of payment.

5. Penalty and Prosecution Immunity:
A penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed on the applicant, with immunity granted to the co-applicants. Immunity from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944, was also granted to the applicant and co-applicants. The Settlement Commission warned that the order would be void if obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.

Conclusion:
The Settlement Commission settled the case by directing the applicant to pay the balance duty and interest, imposed a penalty, and granted immunity from prosecution. The order emphasized the need for maintaining separate records to avail concessional duty benefits and warned against fraudulent practices.