2011 (2) TMI 919 - AT - Central Excise

Stay application - Search - On 24.8.2004 the officers of central excise Commissionerate Delhi-I on receipt of intelligence that the Appellant Company are indulging in large scale of duty evasion searched (a) factory (b) godown-cum-sales office (c) shop/dealer s premises and (d) residence of Shri Hari Om Goyal(Managing Director) - From the premises at B-5/10 Model Town Delhi-9 where testing affixing of brand name and packing takes place a computer CPU installed in the premises was recovered and from the Accountant of the Company a USB storage device was recovered - Held that - the Appellant s reconciliation statement dated 1.1.2010 explaining that the entries in the data retrieved from USB storage device are reflected in the books of accounts of the Appellant had been received by the Commissioner but the same was not considered by him. The impugned order therefore is vitiated due to denial of natural justice - The same is set aside - The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication after considering their plea that the data retrieved from USB storage device is reflected in their statutory records - The appeal and the stay application stand disposed of as above.

Summary

Issues:
1. Central excise duty evasion through manufacturing activities.
2. Seizure of goods and cash.
3. Adjudication of duty demand, penalties, and confiscation of goods.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.

Central excise duty evasion through manufacturing activities:
The case involved a company manufacturing auto parts under the KAMEI brand, where activities like affixing brand names and packing were considered as manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. The company claimed SSI exemption but was suspected of duty evasion. Various premises were searched, leading to the recovery of incriminating evidence such as unaccounted goods, cash, and electronic devices storing crucial data related to unbranded parts procurement and sales activities.

Seizure of goods and cash:
During the searches, goods valued at significant amounts were seized from different locations, along with unaccounted cash. The recovery of items like computer CPUs, USB storage devices, and documents indicated potential irregularities in the company's operations and raised suspicion of duty evasion through unrecorded transactions.

Adjudication of duty demand, penalties, and confiscation of goods:
A show cause notice was issued based on the findings, leading to an adjudication by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The order confirmed duty demands for specific periods, imposed substantial penalties on the company and individuals involved, and ordered the confiscation of seized goods with an option for redemption upon payment of fines. The Commissioner's order was challenged through appeals and stay applications.

Violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process:
During the appeal hearings, the appellant raised concerns about the lack of supply of crucial documents, non-consideration of submissions, and alleged violations of natural justice in the adjudication process. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, noting that the Commissioner had not considered crucial evidence submitted by the appellant, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant evidence and ensuring procedural fairness in the proceedings.

This detailed analysis highlights the complex legal issues surrounding central excise duty evasion, seizure of goods, penalties, and the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in the adjudication process. The judgment underscores the significance of fair procedures and thorough consideration of evidence in legal proceedings related to financial offenses.