2011 (2) TMI 13 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty, interest and penalties - Clearance of the excisable goods without payment of duty using duplicate invoices stands admitted by the authorized signatory of the appellant firm - entire amount of duty along with interest paid before issue of SCN - It was not disputed that duty demanded exactly same as the total amount of duty mentioned in the duplicate invoices no merit in the appeal by the party - Appeal, rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand along with interest not contested.
2. Setting aside penalty grounds.
3. Treatment of cum duty value.
4. Imposition of penalty.
5. Benefit of cum duty value.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant did not contest the duty demand along with interest before the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The advocate sought setting aside the penalty on the grounds that the entire duty involved, including interest, was paid before the issuance of the show-cause notice. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, except for the penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which was set aside.

3. The appellant argued for the benefit of cum duty value, suggesting a revision of duty demand, interest, and penalties. The argument was based on the absence of evidence regarding the collection of duty by the appellant. However, the Tribunal found that the duty demand was based on the amounts separately mentioned as duties in the duplicate invoices, and upheld the duty demand along with interest.

4. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and examined the records. It noted that the clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty, using duplicate invoices, was admitted by the authorized signatory of the appellant firm. The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty along with interest, rejecting the argument that no penalty should be imposed since the duty and interest were paid before the show-cause notice was issued.

5. The Tribunal also dismissed the appellant's request for the benefit of cum duty value, emphasizing that the duty demanded was based on the amounts specified in the duplicate invoices. It was clarified that the recovery of duty from buyers was irrelevant for the payment of duty, and the duty element mentioned in the invoices was crucial. Consequently, the appeal was rejected by the Tribunal.