2007 (7) TMI 84 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty - Department contended that respondent is liable for personnel penalty on the ground that appellant is a director of the company and involved in the clandestine removal - Held that department contention was correct and matter remanded for reconsideration

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25-8-2006 regarding shortage of iron and steel scrap materials valued at Rs. 31,50,000, duty demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 5,04,000, penalties imposed, recovery of interest, findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), lack of clarity on duty demand, penalty, and interest, delay in issue of show cause notice, remand for de novo consideration by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

Shortage of Materials:
The case involved a shortage of 450 mts. of iron and steel scrap materials valued at Rs. 31,50,000, illicitly cleared without payment of Central Excise duty. The Director of the company admitted to the clearance without issuing any invoice due to urgent cash flow needs. The Original Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties and interest.

Findings of Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, criticizing the Department for bias and lack of evidence. He questioned the authenticity of the confession, stating there was no evidence, identification of parties, or money trail. The Commissioner (Appeals) accused the Department of collecting the duty amount forcefully and without proper evidence, leading to a lack of sustainability in the order.

Clarity on Duty Demand, Penalty, and Interest:
The Commissioner (Appeals) did not clearly address the duty demand issue, leading to confusion about the penalties and interest. While discussing prompt payment of duty and lack of penalty imposition, there was no clear decision on the duty demand. The lack of discussion on the consequences of the delay in issuing the show cause notice added to the ambiguity in the order.

Remand for De Novo Consideration:
Due to the issues of bias, lack of evidence, and clarity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, the Appellate Tribunal remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Tribunal highlighted the need for a fair hearing and emphasized that the observations made should not influence the new decision. The appeal of the department was allowed for a de novo review by the Commissioner (Appeals).

This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues and detailed examination of the judgment, highlighting the legal complexities and reasoning behind the decision.