2013 (5) TMI 34 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - statement of other persons Search was conducted and some unaccounted goods were seized. Confiscation - Demand of duty/penalty Held that duty demand for goods found short in the premises of the first appellant is payable. Further the first appellant has to explain the nature of the goods found at the premises of Rider Sales Corporation which is its own premises. There is no argument that the goods manufactured at the premises of Deepak Enterprises were being sent to this premises. So in the facts of the case the duty demanded in respect of such goods also is maintainable unless the goods found short at the factory and the goods found at the premises of Rider Sales Corporation are the same. The adjudicating authority may check this aspect and quantify the demand. Regarding goods seized at the premises of various dealers - held that - the only evidences are the statements of the dealers and the same were not allowed to be cross-examined apparently because they are co-noticees. Once the persons giving statements are not cross-examined the value of the statements as evidence comes down. This aspect also is not considered in investigations and proceedings. Considering all these aspects I am of the view that the duty demand on goods seized at the dealers premises is confirmed without adequately proving the case that there was excise duty liability to be discharged by the first appellant in respect of the goods and such liability was not paid. That being the case the confiscation of goods and penalties imposed on the dealers are not maintainable. So the appeal by appellant is partially allowed as per orders above.

Summary

Issues:
- Allegations of manufacturing and clearing goods without accounting and paying excise duty.
- Seizure of goods from various premises and charges against dealers.
- Confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, and duty demands.
- Discrepancies in stock records and arguments regarding excess goods.
- Arrangement with job worker and duty liability.
- Lack of confrontation with evidence and cross-examination of dealers.
- Legal status of Rider Sales Corporation and duty demands.
- Proof of unaccounted goods seized at dealers' premises and duty liability.
- Consideration of job worker's role in manufacturing and duty liability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses allegations of manufacturing and clearing goods without accounting and paying excise duty. Various premises were searched, and excess goods were noticed compared to accounted stock, leading to charges against dealers for buying unaccounted goods.

2. The case involves the seizure of goods from different premises, leading to proposed demands for excise duty, confiscation of seized goods, and penalties under Rule 26. The appeals contest these demands and penalties.

3. Discrepancies in stock records were highlighted, with arguments regarding excess goods found during the search. Issues related to stock discrepancies and the authenticity of records were raised by the appellant.

4. An arrangement with a job worker, Deepak Rubber Industries, was mentioned, and questions regarding duty liability for goods manufactured by the job worker were raised.

5. Concerns were raised about the lack of confrontation with evidence and the inability to cross-examine dealers who gave statements, implicating the appellant. Arguments were presented regarding the origin of seized goods and the lack of proof of duty payment.

6. The legal status of Rider Sales Corporation was discussed, with questions about duty demands and the entity's relationship with the first appellant. Issues regarding confiscation, fines, and penalties on goods seized from Rider Sales Corporation were addressed.

7. The judgment analyzed the proof of unaccounted goods seized at dealers' premises and the duty liability of the first appellant. The duty demands were confirmed based on the evidence presented.

8. The role of the job worker in manufacturing and supplying goods directly to sales offices was considered, raising questions about duty liability and the application of relevant provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment partially allowed the appeal by the first appellant while setting aside fines and penalties imposed on other parties involved in the case. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, duty demands, confiscation of goods, and penalty impositions, providing a comprehensive resolution to the legal issues at hand.