2009 (12) TMI 557 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - action taken by beyond the period of six months - Held that - no response from the consignees by itself would not set at nought the material evidence and collected during the investigation - further investigation was made and therefore it is not open for the appellant now to contend that the impugned notice issued is beyond the period of limitation - clandestine clearances were being effected which has been established from the record cannot be overlooked - Tribunal reduced the penalties - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of CESTAT confirming Commissioner's order on clandestine removal of goods and non-payment of duty; Substantial questions of law regarding time limit and rectification of mistake.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order passed by CESTAT confirming the Commissioner's order on clandestine removal of goods and non-payment of duty. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the time limit prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1948, and the rejection of the Application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) by CESTAT. The appellant argued that the investigations conducted beyond the statutory time limit were barred by limitation. The Tribunal observed that the investigations related to clandestine activities, allowing an extended period of limitation to the Revenue. However, the appellant contended that the investigations were completed before the period specified, and the subsequent notice was invalid due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT (Appeals), emphasizing the evidence of clandestine removal without payment of duty based on parallel invoice books and statements recorded during the investigation.

The appellant further argued that the further investigation did not reveal any new material supporting the Revenue's case, rendering the impugned notice invalid. Despite the lack of responses from consignees in the further investigation, the collected evidence during the initial investigation remained significant. The Tribunal confirmed the duty liability based on entries in parallel Central Excise invoices and delivery challans, noting that consignees admitted receiving goods without duty payment. The Tribunal emphasized that even if subsequent investigations did not yield additional evidence, it did not signify the conclusion of the initial investigations.

The Tribunal acknowledged the established clandestine clearances and upheld the order while reducing penalties on the Directors. Both the CIT (Appeals) and CESTAT findings were considered conclusive, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court found no substantial question of law involved in the case, ultimately dismissing the appeal based on the decisions of the lower authorities.